See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 11 September 2013
<Chris_IAB> I just joined
<Chris_IAB> I'm on mute
<rachel_n_thomas> zakimn, aaee is rachel_n_thomas
<rachel_n_thomas> sorry nick - i can't spell today.
<Chris_IAB> 661-100-xxxx is me
<Chris_IAB> it's much better now
<schunter> Volunteers to scribe?
<FPFJoeN> that's correct
<npdoty> scribenick: efelten
<Chris_IAB> Can Air join on behalf of NAI
<Chris_IAB> Ari, I mean
<justin> That is not the case.
<justin> That's what we do every call, David
Discussion of who is allowed to participate in the call.
dwainberg: Have typically had lots of non WG members.
schunter: Allow Ari to participate for today, take up the call access issue later
… Main point is to make sure everyone on call is identified
<tlr> zakm, call rigo-781
<tlr> zakm, call rigo-mobile
aleecia: Reason for not having anon callers was to avoid press, so members didn't need PR clearance
schunter: First topic is feedback on proposed plan
… Push this back a bit, let Nick explain the poll first
<ARi> for what it's worth, I've been participating in calls, face to face meetings and workshops for more than a year
… Poll will go live soon, then 3 weeks-ish to respond
<ARi> I'm not a voting member but as engaged as anyone
npdoty: Poll was suggested by schunter in email to group of Sept 3
<wseltzer> [agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0017.html ]
… options on how best to continue
<Chris_IAB> ARi, sound to me like a revenue issue, eh? We have plenty of "invited experts" from advocacy, but apparently industry is has to pay to play
… feedback to W3C from participants
… W3C director makes decision, useful to document group's opinion
<ARi> Chris, don't get me started
<Chris_IAB> Hey ARi, haven't you always wanted to join the circus? ;)
<WileyS> Will poll submissions be public?
schunter: Alternatives were sent around in email
… all the options in email will be available in poll
<dsinger> To become an invited expert, just make the case that you are an expert and cannot easily become a member :-)
… plus comment field
<WileyS> Matthias - your volume is VERY high on the call. Is anyone else getting that?
<npdoty> WileyS, I would commonly make the responses public, but responses only made by participants in the WG
… on each option, say can/cannot live with
<WileyS> Nick - thank you for the response. So to confirm, all poll submissions by WG members will be public for the world to see - including the press. Correct?
… idea is to get general idea of opinion in the group on the various options
<npdoty> WileyS, that is my proposal, yes.
… ideally want all participants to speak up, not just the most active ones
… follow-on to Jeff's listening tour
<WileyS> Nick, are you open to a more closed polling/voting process?
schunter: questions or feedback on poll?
npdoty: In response to Shane's question, normal practice would have responses be public, but can do otherswise if chairs want
<WileyS> My goal would be to get as honest feedback as possible
schunter: Can say it's public within the group only
dwainberg: Discussed this on a previous call but still unclear.
<dsinger> I think we want honesty, which suggests group visibility but not press. Neither being inhibited by publication nor grandstanding would be helpful, IMHO.
<npdoty> dates from schunter: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0027.html opens September 18, closes October 9
… want to review outcome structure and process
<WileyS> Expected inputs, decision criteria, and expected outputs
<Chris_IAB> jeff, please point to your definition of "significant business interest in results from W3C" -- from that definition, you should remove all invited experts from companies who advocate for users (that would include both advocacy groups and industry, to be fair)
schunter: poll will generate raw data, chair and staff will summarize, summary and statistics are input to Director
<susanisrael> prefer to keep comments on the poll within the group. Would be ok with releasing aggregate numbers/results to the press
<dsinger> we're trying to find the "most viable" way forward. if everyone chooses "no confidence" that might not exist :-(
<Chris_IAB> jeff, that would leave only pure academics as qualified to be invited experts...
… look for sensible option with sufficient support
… idea is to give broad piece of information to director to help his decision
<npdoty> we have tended to do our work in public, which has advantages for transparency and makes it easier for us not to have to keep secrets within the 100+ members of our group
<Chris_IAB> jeff, and to date, it's not been a fair or balanced judgement call-- it's always been slanted towards favoritism for advocacy companies
dwainberg: clarifying, this is not a vote, there are no percentage thresholds, correct?
… comes down to persuasiveness of comments, correct?
<npdoty> +1 that it's not a vote
schunter: comments are very important
… not only numbers, also pay attention to which types of participants take which positions
… right outcome is one that gives better odds of reaching good outcome from the group
… comments are useful for understanding this
<susanisrael> npdoty, I'm ok with that but there was a request for preferences, and I think the value of not releasing comments to the press,is that we will get comments that are more functional and less for public positioning but I understand your point
… want to understand why people have the preferences they do
dsinger: trying to determine viability, no point in doing something if nobody wants to work on it
… pointless to plan for version 2 if nobody will continue beyond version 1
<Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to note that it's not a call for objections
<schunter> mute me
… if lots of people want to walk away, points to wrapping up
npdoty: will use same poll technology as in call-for-objections, this is not a call for objections
… feel free to respond even if you don't have detailed comments, please respond even if you're only agreeing with somebody else
schunter: other questions/feedback on poll?
… none heard, move on
… still looking for comments based on email, until Friday Sept 13
… other suggestions/comments now?
<npdoty> to repeat, comments on the plan forward and poll are requested by this Friday, September 13th
… can still comment by email
… note all issue closings should be recorded in writing per normal process
… won't close issue without email to announce list, so people monitoring that list get fair warning and can speak up
… any further comments can be emailed to list
… note that if only one resolution is proposed to an item, can ask is this ok then close issue
… on to item 5 of agenda
<WileyS> Matthias - apologies - how long will we give WG members to raise an issue to closing of an issue post the initial email sent to the announce list?
schunter: ask npdoty for tutorial on how to add text, raise issues etc
wileys: how long do we have to react to proposal to close issue, until issue is closed?
… good to have clear expectation
schunter: 5 minutes (laughter)
wileys: recommend 2 weeks, make sure people traveling etc don't miss it or didn't have time to discuss internally
<Chris_IAB> +1 to WleyS's point on timeframe = 2 weeks = reasonable
schunter: two weeks sounds good
<eberkower> Two BUSINESS weeks, correct?
<wseltzer> two calendar weeks
… that's 14 days
<WileyS> 2 calendar weeks (10 business days)
npdoty: concern about slowing things down
… don't want to wait two weeks, get a small delta suggested, then another two weeks
… don't want process to drag out
wileys: understand npdoty's point but need time for internal discussion
<justin> Is a two-week window typical for W3C working groups?
… trying to be realistic but get to closure
<JackHobaugh> Also, discussions that include Europe take at least 2 days for a round-trip due to the time differences.
… if go too fast people will be asking for more time afterward
schunter: chairs can say they see consensus, people can speak up if they disagree
<dsinger> I guess you can always persuade the group that an issue needs more discussion or time (but please try to be specific what is needed, we can't leave everything open-ended)
… can go into call for objections if issue is unclear
… don't think this becomes a problem because there shouldn't often be multiple rounds on one issue
<WileyS> Thank you
… back to item 5
… posted a link to the tracking june product where all open issues against june draft are recorded
… set date of XXX to get resolution / change proposals on these
<fielding> As I said on July 24 call: "FTR, I object to publishing the [TCS] WD with the definition of tracking that is in the June draft. I would not object to publication of a WD with Justin's prior definition, or with a list of the alternatives that have been proposed."
… asking for complete text proposals to resolve an issue
… in my opinion, current text in working draft is on the table as one proposal
… if you don't like the current text, you should propose an alternative
… or you can propose removing text from june draft
… once we have alternatives we can have meaningful discussion and make a choice
<ChrisPedigoOPA> Can one proposal be "no provision at all"?
… for example, if nobody proposes an alternative definition of tracking, and nobody proposes to delete it, we'll end up with existing june draft text
<tlr> chris, yes
… ask npdoty to explain how the process is best organized
npdoty: will document this to the mailing list
… suggested process for phase 1 (until Oct 2)
… if you have change proposal, send email to public mailing list and to nick
… subject line says it's a change proposal
… propose specific modifications to text, and provide rationale
… nick will help consolidate and/or turn it into a change proposal in the wiki
… that way the issue list and wiki will be accurate and complete
<dsinger> so, for every Change Proposal there will be an Issue, but there may be Issues that do not have Change Proposals?
… if you have a question that isn't a change proposal, we can add it as an issue to a new product that will be created
dwainberg: please summarize diff between issue vs change proposal
schunter: example of issue: how do we define tracking
<dsinger> e.g. I don't see any issue numbers at http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG#Change_proposals, nor do I see an issue that matches e.g. http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Short_Term
… example of change proposal: change definition of tracking to this text: [whatever]
… issue is a decision we need to make, change proposal is one of the choices available in making that decision
<npdoty> dsinger, that wiki page links to issue-134
<dsinger> well, two of the proposals do...
dwainberg: thanks, look forward to nick's writeup
schunter: change proposal must propose specific edits to text
<npdoty> dsinger, I tried to make sure each page (which contains multiple proposals) links back to an issue -- all proposals on each page should be responsive to the same issue, I believe
… "I don't like this" is not a change proposal
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to comment on the relationship of the Wiki to the issue list
dsinger: to clarify, every change proposal should have an issue
<tlr> it should be there
… each change proposal should be linked to an issue, put that issue on the page
… except possibly for editorial proposals
<dsinger> would be good to the put the issue numbers on http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG#Change_proposals
<npdoty> yes, that would be a bug if I didn't have a link back to an issue, let me know
tlr: this should be the case, please tell nick if you see one missing
schunter: if at the end we have an issue with no change proposal, then we won't need to address it
… unless there's a concrete text proposal it's very unlikely we'll address the issue
<npdoty> +1, I suggest we handle those issues by postponing them past the Last Call
susanisrael: want to make sure we understand deadlines
… issue freeze on oct 2, that's still the date?
… change proposal deadline is different, can continue to raise change proposals until issue is closed, or is oct 2 deadline for change proposals too?
schunter: oct 2 is deadline for raising issues
<fielding> suggestions for changes can be sent at any time, regardless of other processes
… must have one or more initial draft change proposals by oct 2, otherwise issue will be set aside
<npdoty> as described in Phase 2 of the proposed plan http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2013Sep/0010.html we would then add change proposals and counter-proposals and if necessary go through those alternatives in a call for objections
… main task will be to work on issues that have more than one possibility on the table as of oct 2
<JackHobaugh> Nick, is it possible to add the ISSUE-# to the change proposals in the wiki?
<npdoty> JackHobaugh, it's already linked from the individual pages, and we'll add it to the overview page as well
… for those issues that are still on the table, more change proposals will be possible after oct 2
… if no consensus emerges, will eventually do call for objections
<JackHobaugh> Thanks, it would be good to be able to see the ISSUE-# in the link.
… want to identify which issues are easy and which hard
<npdoty> any issue the group wants to be addressed needs to have a change proposal by October 2nd
susanisrael: to clarify: you want most of the change proposals by oct 2, but those proposals can evolve later?
schunter: yes, should propose change by oct 2 but can evolve wording later
<schunter> September 13: Deadline for feedback on the proposed plan
<schunter> September 18 (new): Revised plan is announced
<schunter> September 18 (updated): Poll opens
<schunter> October 02: Issue Freeze: Issues raised after October 02 will be deferred to be addressed after Last Call.
<schunter> October 09: The poll closes; chairs and team assess responses.
… pragmatic approach to see where there is difference of opinion worth working out
schunter: done with agenda item 5
<fielding> As I said on July 24 call: "FTR, I object to publishing the [TCS] WD with the definition of tracking that is in the June draft. I would not object to publication of a WD with Justin's prior definition [in April WD], or with a list of the alternatives that have been proposed."
… sent around document, justin put disclaimers in document saying it is not consensus yet
… would like the group to get feedback into draft and move on to publishing as working draft
… ask everyone to look at draft, suggest any improvements
… improvement should be actionable
<amyc> and to clarify, no need to resubmit change proposals that we already submitted on this WD, correct?
… will have overall disclaimer that document is not consensus, don't need to put it in everywhere
<npdoty> amyc, that's right, we already have change proposals tracked
<npdoty> ... and I'm also helping the editors keep a list of editorial suggestions, which haven't all been made
… input on text of the disclaimer is welcome too
fielding: already objected to defn of tracking that is in june draft
… would have been ok with defn from previous working draft
<justin> I will resubmit my language as a CHANGE PROPOSAL and have Nick add it to the Wiki.
… have spoken up often about this
… this needs to be fixed before publication as WD
<dsinger> Roy, saying you have an objection is not the same as stating it. I still don't understand what you object to.
schunter: no question that there are some objections to this text, not trying to resolve these all before WD publication
<npdoty> I'm confused, there isn't universal agreement on many sections of the drafts; I don't expect to get to universal agreement before publishing a working draft
<amyc> thanks justin
… would be useful to have pointers to alternative text in the document
… important to document your suggested text in the wiki
<tlr> note that the edtor's draft has a link to ISSUE-5
<tlr> right next to the definition of "tracking"
… do we need to put all proposals into the text, or just refer people to the wiki
<dsinger> Notes that there is a serious editorial error; there are section headings missing after 3.8, so "tracking" is defined in a section labelled "de-identified"
fielding: can't say there are no objections to text or to publishing in current state
… shouldn't have to repeatedly object
<justin> FWIW, the wiki already has a different tracking definition from fielding. But I will add my own as well (which is shorter and perhaps simpler).
<npdoty> dsinger, I have a diff to the editors that fixes some of the headings
… change was made without consulting group, better to revert text
<justin> Lots of stuff was changed in the June Draft. (?)
<Chris_IAB> what's the chair's response to this?
<WileyS> +1 to David Singer - too many editorial issues with the Swire/W3C Staff (June) Draft for publication at this time.
aleecia: disagree with fielding about how tracking should be defined, but agree that both of us have spoken repeatedly for alternatives
<npdoty> I still have a list of editorial suggestions we need to work through
… frustrating to have to keep re-raising these
<dsinger> volunteers to deal with editorial issues (along with the other editors).
<dwainberg> +1 Aleecia
… feels like a waste of time re-raise objection and nothing happens
dwainberg: will there be opportunity to object to publication of text in working draft?
<tlr> w/in 31
<justin> If Nick has a list of editorial changes, I am happy to do it. I will coordinate with him. But Matthias had suggested we hold off while we were considering publishing as a working draft.
… is that separate from suggesting changes for the oct 2 process?
<dsinger> I think we can re-publish as frequently as we like. Changes now to fix editorial issues, reflect the correct consensus, and so on. CPs/Issues to fix substantive problems?
schunter: in WD, can say in text that we don't have consensus on definition of tracking, and point to issue 5
… can follow this approach generally, put notes and wiki-pointers into text where there are disagreements
… suggest this strategy for dealing with disagreements about proposed WD text
<dsinger> can I try?
dwainberg: on mailing list, I objected to publication of this as WD
… if those objections don't stand, want to understand what the process is regarding WD publication
<fielding> To clarify, I did not object to the tracking definition not being resolved in the June draft -- I objected to an arbitrarily new definition being added to the draft without agreement from the WG, which is a problem because the new definition is inconsistent with the rest of the WD and vastly increases the scope of DNT. Justin's prior definition wasn't perfect, but at least it was consistent with the WG discussions and the rest of the draft.
… still not clear on what schunter is asking for
dsinger: WD should reflect clearly where there is agreement, where there is disagreement and the nature of the disagreement
dwainberg: seems like a lot of work to label disagreements and open issues in the proposed WD text
<schunter> Concrete improvements that I gathered are:
dsinger: for now we can add stuff to WD draft to note disagreements and open issues, but shouldn't litigate the disagreements
<schunter> - Replace concrete text by pointers to the corresponding text on the wiki
<schunter> - Add a section heading
dwainberg: prior to publication as WD, editors will add to text links to disagreements and issues?
tlr: already done, if something is missing please tell the editors
<justin> Or please tell npdoty who is coordinating all editorial fixes!
<schunter> - Add a disclaimer that the list of issues is not yet complete and new issues can be done by [Deadline]
… can re-publish WD if we need to make minor editorial changes later
… not a requirement that there be consensus on the text, text says explicitly that nobody particularly endorses it
<WileyS> Thomas, respectfully, it seems odd to be so tied to process at this point when the document itself was generated outside of standard process.
<Chris_IAB> tlr, you sound angry?
… let's move from process discussion to suggestions of specific changes to make it publishable as WD,
… that is, places where issues are not noted in the text
<WileyS> I believe the issues aren't with the process "at this point", but rather, issues are still attached to the initial development of this document outside of standard process.
… WD is not an indication of consensus, should be very clear on that
<tlr> chris_iab, I don't think so
schunter: got valuable feedback on this call, will channel to the editors
… plan to do all necessary text fixes to publish next draft in a week or so
… is one week enough to get necessary text fixes in place?
… just editorial fixes
<susanisrael> As I understand Roy's and Aleecia's objections to the definition of tracking in the working draft, they are concerned that , the current definition is NOT a reflection of the group's work--not just that it does not represent consensus. Roy, correct?
<fielding> To be clear, the definition of tracking in the June draft is not an accurate presentation of the WG's discussions
<Chris_IAB> tlr, just sounded that way, as you are normally very calm and collected
<schunter> I agree to fielding
dwainberg: can we have two weeks?
<tlr> fielding, there's a link to issue-5 there.
dsinger: need to get this out the door
… most recent published WD is very old, misleading
<Chris_IAB> what's the particular urgency?
<JackHobaugh> Is W3C Editor's Draft 06 September 2013 the version we are discussing now?
schunter: will email the list, asking for changes in time for new draft next week
<wseltzer> JackHobaugh, yes
… will get changes implemented within two weeks
<Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to respond on editorial issues
<Chris_IAB> JackHobaugh, I think it's the "June Draft" that Swire made up (to Roy's good point)
npdoty: saw questions on IRC, suggestions for editorial fixes
… have been noting those, will work on getting them into document
<WileyS> I believe all of the open issues noted in the pre-Swire/W3C Staff (June) Draft need to be pulled forward before something is published. Am I hearing correctly that everyone agrees and that will occur prior to publication?
… happy to help manage the collation of edits
<JackHobaugh> The issues designated in the Sep 6 Editors' Draft do not appear to match up with the 23 open issues. There are extra issues and issues missing.
<justin> I don't understand your point WileyS.
schunter: move on to ISSUE-214
<justin> Open issues are noted in the June draft. I suspect you're referring to something else though,
<npdoty> that's issue 214, I believe
<trackbot> issue-214 -- Adding to last public working draft -- raised
… issues suggest grabbing useful text from old draft, transplant into new draft
<WileyS> The currently public working draft has many issues highlighted within the document. I'm suggesting these need to be pulled forward into the Swire/W3C Staff (June) Draft prior to publication (many open issues aren't in there).
… how to best organize this process
<npdoty> JackHobaugh, justin -- I believe the issues in the current editors' draft are links to issues that were up to date as of mid-June, when I was last asked to do that update
… perhaps should break up the big ISSUE-214 into smaller actionable suggestions
<WileyS> Justin - it appeared several were missing - I'll double check
… easier to implement and decide on smaller pieces
<npdoty> WileyS, I believe the editors' draft was updated by me at the group's request to include all the open issues as of June (which should be up-to-date with the issues in the April 30th Working Draft)
… turn the one issue into, say, 15-20 issues
… then can discuss issue by issue in the normal way
<justin> WileyS, I see. I probably wrote those so don't object on principle! But there is a general statement that nothing is consensus, and all the extra language might make the document less readable. Don't feel terribly strongly though.
… problem is how to go about doing this
… how should we organize ourselves
<Zakim> dsinger, you wanted to suggest a companion document
… if we nothing about this, ISSUE-214 would require a specific set of edits to implement it
dsinger: last draft was hard to read because normative requirements were hidden in non-normative text
… was hard to discuss because we spent a lot of time on data that wasn't normative
… perhaps keep an annex or separate document for useful non-normative material
… would that take the pressure off the document, by letting text stay alive in the annex?
… is this a useful approach?
<npdoty> +1, I like this idea
<npdoty> I suggested an appendix regarding some of the non-normative text for possible techniques (from jmayer's draft in particular) in the past, but a separate document sounds good too
<amyc> +1 cricket
<fielding> tlr, when an editor's draft contains a change that the WG (in this case, the vast majority of the WG) disagrees with, the right procedure is to revert that change or make it a set of alternatives prior to WD publication. That is the process that the chairs insisted *I* adhere to, so I expect the chairs and W3C staff to adhere to it as well. If you don't, then I need to start removing references to TCS from TPE.
schunter: suggestion to have a separate section of non-normative text for each normative section
… other opinions?
npdoty: is it helpful to push out a draft of that?
<dsinger> to Roy, I think you are overstating things somewhat
<schunter> to fielding: this is actually a good suggestion for the next release of the WD.
… does group support it?
aleecia: have been talking about doing this for a long time
… having a toggle to show/not-show the bonus non-normative text, or separate it somehow
<npdoty> +1 that we've been looking at alternatives for this for a while
… good idea to do it
schunter: seem to have consensus on doing this
… should it be a companion document, or something else
<dsinger> I think the editors could make a draft "technical report" fairly readily, and we can decide then where it goes (annex, or separate document). at least the text is not then 'lost in history'
… each section can start with normative part, followed by non-normative
… can flip a switch to hide the non-normative text
… like doing this in toggle style
<kulick> agreed on toggling style
… easier to manage if it's one document rather than two that have to be kept in sync
<justin> Change proposals?
… question: how to find gold nuggets in old document to transplant into new document
<schunter> thomas, go ahead
tlr: heard agreement that one or another of those specific plans would work
<schunter> I agre
… suggest asking the editors to think about whether to use toggle or another approach
schunter: good to ask editors to think about this
… question: how to find nuggets in the old draft
<fielding> non-normative text cannot contain any requirements (no musts, shoulds, or anything more than examples)
… suggest creating wiki text with same outline, ask people to copy-paste text from old document into the wiki text
… copy-pasted stuff then gets considered for inclusion in new draft
justin: june draft was proposed as simpler distillation of existing draft
… all of june draft text is alternative phrasing of stuff in the old text
<schunter> Proposal: Empty outline of june draft as wiki and people can import essential non-normative text into this outline.
… doesn't make sense to just paste old-draft text alongside the new text
<npdoty> except for non-normative text, right?
… suggest going the issues-and-proposals route
<npdoty> although that might be better in a companion-style document anyway
… people can propose adding old text to new doc
<justin> Oh, I misunderstood.
… or propose replacing new text with older text
schunter: this transplantation discussion is just for non-normative text
… looking for a lightweight way to make use of non-normative text from older text
… as always, non-normative text must be in sync with normative
<npdoty> I can create a wiki page for pulling up non-normative text that would be good for the draft going forward or for a companion non-normative document
<justin> I'm fine with pulling out examples from other drafts.
… shouldn't just transplant non-normative text into place where it differs from governing normative text
… aleecia, do you think this is a good approach?
npdoty: aleecia had to drop off the call a few minutes ago
schunter: anyone disagree with trying this?
… ok, will try, see if it works
… npdoty will create the wiki page for this purpose
<npdoty> ACTION: doty to set up wiki page with outline for gathering non-normative text (from April WD or elsewhere) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-dnt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-428 - Set up wiki page with outline for gathering non-normative text (from april wd or elsewhere) [on Nick Doty - due 2013-09-18].
… once we have the text we'll consider its consistency with normative text
<npdoty> action-428 due September 14
<trackbot> Set action-428 Set up wiki page with outline for gathering non-normative text (from april wd or elsewhere) due date to 2013-09-14.
… remember timeline
… by end of this week, send feedback on timeline
… open the poll very soon
… close poll on oct 9
… issue freeze on oct 2
… should have change proposals by oct 2
<npdoty> schunter's updated list of dates:
<npdoty> September 13: Deadline for feedback on the proposed plan
<npdoty> September 18 (new): Revised plan is announced
<npdoty> September 18 (updated): Poll opens
<npdoty> October 02: Issue Freeze: Issues raised after October 02 will be
<npdoty> deferred to be addressed after Last Call.
<npdoty> October 09: The poll closes; chairs and team assess responses.
npdoty: poll will open on sept 18
schunter: consult latest email for dates and deadlines
… thanks everybody, that's all for this week
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Topic: Tutorial// Succeeded: s/different/difference/ Succeeded: s/ISSUE-2 and ISSUE-4/ISSUE-214/ Found ScribeNick: efelten Inferring Scribes: efelten Default Present: +1.203.563.aaaa, +1.202.587.aabb, +1.650.465.aacc, +1.212.768.aadd, npdoty, Peder_Magee, Wendy, Chris_IAB?, +1.212.768.aaee, schunter?, Keith_Scarborough, rachel_n_thomas, +1.215.286.aaff, +31.65.141.aagg, WaltMichel, Fielding, rvaneijk, +1.212.432.aahh, Thomas, eberkower, moneill2, hwest, +1.202.331.aaii, +1.609.258.aajj, Lynn_Nielsen, efelten, SusanIsrael, hefferjr, Jeff, Rigo, peter-4As, RichardWeaver, Joanne, +1.646.827.aakk, +1.650.465.aall, WileyS, schunter, [CDT], dsinger, +1.202.344.aamm, Chris_Pedigo, david_macmillan, kulick, Ari, zaneis, FPFJoeN, LeeTien, dwainberg, Brooks, Chapell, Aleecia, adrianba, JeffWilson, +1.650.813.aann, robsherman, laurengelman, Amy_Colando Present: +1.203.563.aaaa +1.202.587.aabb +1.650.465.aacc +1.212.768.aadd npdoty Peder_Magee Wendy Chris_IAB? +1.212.768.aaee schunter? Keith_Scarborough rachel_n_thomas +1.215.286.aaff +31.65.141.aagg WaltMichel Fielding rvaneijk +1.212.432.aahh Thomas eberkower moneill2 hwest +1.202.331.aaii +1.609.258.aajj Lynn_Nielsen efelten SusanIsrael hefferjr Jeff Rigo peter-4As RichardWeaver Joanne +1.646.827.aakk +1.650.465.aall WileyS schunter [CDT] dsinger +1.202.344.aamm Chris_Pedigo david_macmillan kulick Ari zaneis FPFJoeN LeeTien dwainberg Brooks Chapell Aleecia adrianba JeffWilson +1.650.813.aann robsherman laurengelman Amy_Colando WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 11 Sep 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/09/11-dnt-minutes.html People with action items: doty WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]