W3C

Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

10 Jul 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Shadi, Simon, Justin, Yehya, Vivienne, Markel, Peter
Regrets
Giorgio
Chair
Simon
Scribe
Peter

Contents


New Charter (5m)

shadi: charter under review - should be wrapped up by end of month
... bit of an issue leaving us in limbo

<yeliz> Hi all, I am having problems with the call so I will be on the chat only today

shadi: impact on publishing
... no comments on charter

Metrics W3C Note Status (5m)

shadi: status on metrics note, sadly no progress
... needs to go through publication process - weighting on charter

Mobile W3C Note Status (5m)

<yeliz> We have completed all the comments

<yeliz> completed addressing all the comments

<yeliz> This latest Editor Draft is for review:

<yeliz> - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2012/mobile/note/ED-mobile

<yeliz> and how we addressed comments are available here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2013Jul/0007

<yeliz> I guess it would be great, if people can review and give us feedback on these

shadi: need to verify changes with mobile note
... no objections, only comments

<yeliz> yes, that would be good

shadi: need people to verify they're ok with the changes

<yeliz> it would be great if people can verify that they are OK with our changes

shadi: we need to check how previous survey was setup

sharper: I'll check on the survey and send an email out to the list

<shadi> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/mobile-public-release/

sharper: based on comments, everybody's agreed we just need to release to public comment

shadi: this will be your opportunity to give any objections

<Vivienne> I'm fine for it to go to public comment

<yeliz> Can we get this confirmation asap so it goes out for public comment

<yeliz> :)

shadi: several active people who have not responded are: marko, vivian, luz, silvia (to name a few)

sharper: we've given them fair warning

shadi: as of now this will give them a week and a bit advance, then next wednesday we can make the decision to publish or not
... people currently haven't had enough time to review

<markel> me neither

sharper: so we can do this next week - myself and markel won't be able to make the next call

shadi: i can take next week's call

<yeliz> I think giving a deadline would be good

<yeliz> Next week would be good

shadi: deadline by next tuesday for comments

sharper: any comments about mobile?

<yeliz> that's great

Easy to Read W3C Note Status (5m)

shadi: no authors on the call (easy to read)
... spoke with klaus last week, hope to get a draft for next week

Text Customisation W3C Note Status (5m)

User Modelling Symposia Update (10m)

yehya: working on the agenda
... comments from yeliz on time and have cut back a little
... suggestions about communication between chairs and I will lead session 1

<yeliz> I was just worried that people would get bored:(

yehya: kristos will take some notes and will lead session 2
... session 3 we aim to make it joint
... all other logistical items have been solved - registration is going on
... 28 participants so far (as of yesturday)

shadi: up to 45 registered people
... publicity helped
... will send out an updated list after this call so you can verify the authors are all registered
... group members need to register if interested

sharper: anything you need from us yehya?

yehya: any experience from last symposium would be very welcome
... last bits of work are preparing questions..
... waiting on symposium and hoping for an interesting symposium

shadi: did receive some updated papers from you (yehya) and kristos
... will be closing the registration tomorrow and then forwarding on the call days
... on closing registration, would be good to update the agenda

yehya: we will send you an updated agenda

Alternate Weekly Research - First Topic

sharper: this is starting the new way we'll be doing things
... this is still in draft so we can talk about it
... possibility of inter group topics
... will be part of our research catalog
... this is a discussion on how things will work and the best way is to decide on the first topic

<markel> sounds like a great idea

sharper: what do we think about these alternate weekly topics?

vivenne: sounds like a great idea

<yeliz> I think this is a great idea

<yeliz> it would be good to discuss different research topics

vivenne: topic on the value people see on accreditation

sounds good to me

<Justin> all good

thanks shadi :) (was just keying that)

markel: so we need someone to lead the topic

sharper: yes and I need to talk with shadi
... worry we'd lose some discussion
... not sure how we can get a scriber and leader
... need to discuss the process with shadi
... open to suggestions about how this would work

markel: really needed?

sharper: yes, I think recording is valuable

<yeliz> I agree with Markel, do we really need a lead?

<Vivienne> I agree Simon, I'd hate to lose the discussion

<yeliz> isn't it enough to have a scriber?

shadi: should get the outcome clear
... how useful would all the detail be
... the more tied to outcome, the more scribers can focus

sharper: agree, important to see how will fit in research catalog
... will include all our work
... including our thought process

markel: I like the idea of a catalog
... could be a way of selecting a topic from a subset

<shadi> +1

sharper: good thing to think about

<markel> yes but I prefer to have a discussion than not having it because of infrastructure issues

vivenne: was going to say the same thing as markel
... if we record it all properly will be a start for a future symposium

<yeliz> +1 to Markel's comment

<yeliz> we need flexible infrastructure

vivenne: not sure if their is a way to put these into a blog/wiki

<yeliz> otherwise, we will never have research discussions

<yeliz> and we will instead spend time on the ifrastructure details:(

vivenne: could have a value for other research

sharper: do we concur that the best plan is for me to send an email out with suggestions for topics and people to lead those topics
... then create a survey to rank them
... if not, I need an alternative proposal

<markel> +1

<Vivienne> +1

<Justin> +1

sharper: email to send out topics and leaders and move into a survey

<shadi> +1

+1

<Yehya> +1

<yeliz> +1

<sharper> +1

sharper: might be good to jot down some notes in a wiki page about what's expected and how to prepare a discussion
... providing some guidance for people to orient themselves
... my plan would be to get some notes into the wiki for friday morning about what we're thinking about

<yeliz> they should be brief and simple, otherwise people give up leading a discussion:)

sharper: note about: we expect this to be extended over time and refined
... then send the email out on friday with suggestions and happy for leaders

markel: thought - as members of group could be a way of motivating participants with each member (rdwg) leading a topic
... lead = chairing and making questions without much work load

<Vivienne> great idea

sharper: sounds good

<markel> LOL

sharper: not sure if we'll get more or less if participants have to chair

<yeliz> lead = should be minimum work:)

shadi: most participants have some research in progress and will hopefully be a good exchange
... hope we don't have to force people
... like marke's suggestion of a list of contributions with some sort of a cycle

<markel> definitely

<Vivienne> I think it's a great way to get into leading things for those who aren't used to it

sharper: good idea, still gives people a way to contribute by putting one of these discussions together

<yeliz> yes, I agree

Symposia Timeline

sharper: am going to put this on the back burner
... unless you feel this would be better discussed

shadi: might be worth while to get some feedback on other's who have done symposiums
... we want a quick turn around and on the other hand things do require time but also need mile stones

<sharper> >

<sharper> > -12 weeks - announce call for papers and scientific committee

<sharper> > -8 weeks - final call for papers

<sharper> What is the difference between "call for papers" and "final call for papers"? Is the first the draft CfP for the group to review?

<sharper> > -6 weeks - deadline for paper submissions

<sharper> 2 weeks from "call for papers" to paper submission deadline is really too short. W3C default for this is 4-6 weeks (sometimes even 8!).

<sharper> > -6 weeks - call for participation

<sharper> We haven't done this consistently. Maybe it should be optional?

<sharper> > -4 weeks - review feedback

<sharper> Let's check with the people who organized previous symposia whether 2 weeks is sufficient to get feedback from the reviewers and relay them?

<sharper> > -3 weeks - deadline for final papers, announcement of program

<sharper> Given previous experiences with people not responding on requested changes, it may be best to move "announcement of program" to the next stage when we open the registration.

<sharper> > -2 weeks - final call for participation and registration opens

<sharper> > -1 weeks - publication of accepted papers

<sharper> We should have the papers published before we open the registration. However, we should not open registration only 1 week in advance and equally 2 weeks from "deadline for final papers" is not enough.

<sharper> > 0 weeks - Day X - teleconference symposium

<sharper> >

<sharper> > +10 weeks - Editors Draft of WG Note for review by the WG

<sharper> Maybe here is some slack? Can we try to get the drafts any earlier?

<sharper> > +12 weeks - WG approval for publication of the WG Note

<sharper> > +14 weeks - Working Draft publication of the WG Note

<sharper> Tight but manageable *if* comments do not require substantial change.

<sharper> > +18 weeks - WG approval for publication of the WG Note

<sharper> Hmmm. This would be deadline for public comments, and then the editors would need to draft up another Editor Draft for the WG to review.

<sharper> +20 weeks - Editor Draft of WG for review by the WG

<sharper> +22 weeks - WG approval for publication of the WG Note

<sharper> > +21 weeks - Publication and announcement of the WG Note

<sharper> This would be +24 weeks.

sharper: > signs are my comments and so are shadi's
... look at it as a timeline (see details)
... 9 month timeline with call for papers..
... what do we agree with and not agree with?

<markel> sounds good to me

manageable timeline - looks good

vivienne: can you explain the first few details..

sharper: final call for papers would go out while people still have time to write one
... (goes over details)..

<Justin> sounds good

<Yehya> +1

sharper: some of the bits may need to be more detailed

<Vivienne> This looks good, but it would good to see it graphically?

<Vivienne> maybe a flow chart?

sharper: yah a flowchart but not sure how to make accessible
... could do a text and flowchart version
... not seeing any feedback other than it looks reasonable
... shadi and I are talking about making language more explicit
... i'll re-write the wiki page and add a flow chart and a timeline calculator

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-07-15 06:40:30 $