Meeting Record

Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 30 January 2015

Agenda

http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130

Seen

Adriano Pereira, Annette Greiner, Bernadette Farias Loscio, Carlos Iglesias, Caroline Burle, Deirdre Lee, Eric Kauz, Jeremy Debattista, Joao Almeida, Lewis Mcgibbney, Makx Dekkers, Nathalia Sautchuk Patrício, Phil Archer, Riccardo Albertoni, Steven Adler, Unknown newton, Vagner Diniz, Yaso Córdova

Chair

Deirdre Lee

Scribe

Lewis Mcgibbney

IRC Log

Original

Resolutions

Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 link
That we will NOT publish the doc as voted on last week link
spend this week reviewing it, next week come together and repeat VOTE about VOTE'ing next week link

Topics

Best Practice document

There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.

It may be helpful to

13:58:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/30-dwbp-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/30-dwbp-irc ←

13:58:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 351

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs 351 ←

13:58:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be DWBP

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be DWBP ←

13:58:29 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM already started

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot, I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM already started ←

13:58:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference

13:58:30 <trackbot> Date: 30 January 2015

13:58:51 <phila> zakim, this will be dwbp

Phil Archer: zakim, this will be dwbp ←

13:58:52 <Zakim> ok, phila, I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM already started

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, phila, I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM already started ←

13:58:54 <deirdrelee> rrsagent, make logs public

Deirdre Lee: rrsagent, make logs public ←

13:58:55 <Zakim> + +1.626.487.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.626.487.aabb ←

13:59:01 <deirdrelee> chair: deirdrelee

13:59:16 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

13:59:19 <phila> zakim, [ is me

Phil Archer: zakim, [ is me ←

13:59:19 <Zakim> +phila; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +phila; got it ←

13:59:38 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

13:59:49 <deirdrelee> zakim, +[ipcaller] is me

Deirdre Lee: zakim, +[ipcaller] is me ←

13:59:49 <Zakim> sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named '+[ipcaller]'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named '+[ipcaller]' ←

13:59:55 <Eric_Kauz> no I am 609

Eric Kauz: no I am 609 ←

13:59:57 <deirdrelee> zakim, +[IPCaller] is me

Deirdre Lee: zakim, +[IPCaller] is me ←

13:59:57 <Zakim> sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPCaller]'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPCaller]' ←

14:00:00 <phila> zakim, [ is deirdrelee

Phil Archer: zakim, [ is deirdrelee ←

14:00:00 <Zakim> +deirdrelee; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +deirdrelee; got it ←

14:00:01 <Zakim> +riccardoAlbertoni

Zakim IRC Bot: +riccardoAlbertoni ←

14:00:10 <riccardoAlbertoni> hi All!

Riccardo Albertoni: hi All! ←

14:00:23 <deirdrelee> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130

14:00:41 <AdrianoC-UFMG> Hi all, I am in transit, only in chat. Hi All!

Adriano Pereira: Hi all, I am in transit, only in chat. Hi All! ←

14:01:09 <phila> regrets+ Christophe, Laufer, EricS

Phil Archer: regrets+ Christophe, Laufer, EricS ←

14:01:59 <Zakim> +annette_g

Zakim IRC Bot: +annette_g ←

14:03:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

14:03:21 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> Zakim, IPcaller is me

Joao Almeida: Zakim, IPcaller is me ←

14:03:21 <Zakim> +JoaoPauloAlmeida; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +JoaoPauloAlmeida; got it ←

14:03:30 <deirdrelee> zakim, who is here

Deirdre Lee: zakim, who is here ←

14:03:30 <Zakim> deirdrelee, you need to end that query with '?'

Zakim IRC Bot: deirdrelee, you need to end that query with '?' ←

14:03:33 <deirdrelee> zakim, who is here?

Deirdre Lee: zakim, who is here? ←

14:03:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.609.557.aaaa, +1.626.487.aabb, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.609.557.aaaa, +1.626.487.aabb, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida ←

14:03:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see Caroline_, adler1, jerdeb, JoaoPauloAlmeida, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, lewismc, riccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, AdrianoC-UFMG, Eric_Kauz, deirdrelee,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Caroline_, adler1, jerdeb, JoaoPauloAlmeida, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, lewismc, riccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, AdrianoC-UFMG, Eric_Kauz, deirdrelee, ←

14:03:35 <Zakim> ... phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, sandro, trackbot ←

14:03:49 <Eric_Kauz> zakim, aaaa is me

Eric Kauz: zakim, aaaa is me ←

14:03:49 <Zakim> +Eric_Kauz; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Eric_Kauz; got it ←

14:04:13 <phila> regrets+ Hadley

Phil Archer: regrets+ Hadley ←

14:04:16 <lewismc> zakim, lewismc is me

Lewis Mcgibbney: zakim, lewismc is me ←

14:04:18 <Zakim> sorry, lewismc, I do not recognize a party named 'lewismc'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, lewismc, I do not recognize a party named 'lewismc' ←

14:04:18 <Zakim> +yaso

Zakim IRC Bot: +yaso ←

14:04:20 <phila> RRSAgent, make logs public

Phil Archer: RRSAgent, make logs public ←

14:04:26 <Caroline_> Zakim, yaso is Caroline_

Caroline Burle: Zakim, yaso is Caroline_ ←

14:04:26 <Zakim> +Caroline_; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Caroline_; got it ←

14:04:27 <Zakim> +??P25

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P25 ←

14:04:27 <Zakim> +Steve

Zakim IRC Bot: +Steve ←

14:04:31 <phila> zakim, aabb is lewismc

Phil Archer: zakim, aabb is lewismc ←

14:04:31 <Zakim> +lewismc; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +lewismc; got it ←

14:04:44 <lewismc> Thank you phila

Lewis Mcgibbney: Thank you phila ←

14:04:48 <deirdrelee> zakim, who is here?

Deirdre Lee: zakim, who is here? ←

14:04:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see Eric_Kauz, lewismc, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida, Caroline_, ??P25, Steve

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Eric_Kauz, lewismc, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida, Caroline_, ??P25, Steve ←

14:04:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see Caroline_, adler1, jerdeb, JoaoPauloAlmeida, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, lewismc, riccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, AdrianoC-UFMG, Eric_Kauz, deirdrelee,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Caroline_, adler1, jerdeb, JoaoPauloAlmeida, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, lewismc, riccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, AdrianoC-UFMG, Eric_Kauz, deirdrelee, ←

14:04:50 <Zakim> ... phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, sandro, trackbot ←

14:05:09 <jerdeb> Zakim, P25 is me

Jeremy Debattista: Zakim, P25 is me ←

14:05:10 <Zakim> sorry, jerdeb, I do not recognize a party named 'P25'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, jerdeb, I do not recognize a party named 'P25' ←

14:05:14 <jerdeb> Zakim, ??P25 is me

Jeremy Debattista: Zakim, ??P25 is me ←

14:05:14 <Zakim> +jerdeb; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +jerdeb; got it ←

14:05:35 <deirdrelee> scribe: lewismc

(Scribe set to Lewis Mcgibbney)

14:05:54 <phila> phila has changed the topic to: agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130

Phil Archer: phila has changed the topic to: agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130 ←

14:06:08 <Caroline_> Zakim, Caroline_ has nathalia and newton

Caroline Burle: Zakim, Caroline_ has nathalia and newton ←

14:06:08 <Zakim> +nathalia, newton; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +nathalia, newton; got it ←

14:07:00 <deirdrelee> www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23

Deirdre Lee: www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 ←

14:07:03 <phila> -> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 last week's minutes

Phil Archer: -> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 last week's minutes ←

14:07:34 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

14:07:37 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio

Bernadette Farias Loscio: zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio ←

14:07:37 <Zakim> +BernadetteLoscio; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +BernadetteLoscio; got it ←

14:07:42 <deirdrelee> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23

PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 ←

14:07:51 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, mute BernadetteLoscio

Bernadette Farias Loscio: zakim, mute BernadetteLoscio ←

14:07:51 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: BernadetteLoscio should now be muted ←

14:07:56 <adler1> +1

Steven Adler: +1 ←

14:07:57 <phila> +1

Phil Archer: +1 ←

14:07:58 <annette_g> +1

Annette Greiner: +1 ←

14:07:58 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

Joao Almeida: +1 ←

14:08:02 <BernadetteLoscio> +1

Bernadette Farias Loscio: +1 ←

14:08:04 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1

Riccardo Albertoni: +1 ←

14:08:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

14:08:06 <AdrianoC-UFMG> +1

Adriano Pereira: +1 ←

14:08:13 <deirdrelee> +1

Deirdre Lee: +1 ←

14:08:16 <yaso> Zakim, IPcaller is yaso

Yaso Córdova: Zakim, IPcaller is yaso ←

14:08:16 <Zakim> +yaso; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +yaso; got it ←

14:08:16 <Eric_Kauz> +1

Eric Kauz: +1 ←

14:08:25 <newton> Hi Phill, I would like to ask you if you know why my name is shown as Guest +1

Scribe problem: the name 'newton' does not match any of the 57 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Adriano Veloso Adriano Pereira Amy Guy Ana Salgado Annette Greiner Antoine Isaac Bart van Leeuwen Bernadette Farias Loscio Carlos Iglesias Carlos Tejo Carlos Laufer Caroline Burle Christophe Gueret Daniel Schwabe Deirdre Lee Elie SLOÏM Eric Kauz Eric Stephan Erik Mannens Flavio Yanai Ghislain Atemezing Giancarlo Guizzardi Gisele Pappa Gustavo Suárez Volpe Hadley Beeman Ig Bittencourt Santana Pinto Ingo Simonis Jeremy Debattista Joao Almeida John Goodwin Kangchan Lee Kiev Santos da Gama Lewis Mcgibbney Makx Dekkers Manuel Carrasco Benitez Mark Harrison Martín Álvarez Michel Dumontier Mohamed ZERGAOUI Nathalia Sautchuk Patrício Phil Archer Raphaël Troncy Riccardo Albertoni Seiji Isotani Silvia Da Rosa Steven Adler Sumit Purohit Vagner Diniz Vinh Nguyen Wagner Meira Jr. William Mischo William Smith Yaso Córdova victoria koster Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot

Unknown newton: Hi Phill, I would like to ask you if you know why my name is shown as Guest +1 ←

14:08:33 <Caroline_> +1

Caroline Burle: +1 ←

14:08:40 <lewismc> ACCEPT: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23

RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 ←

14:09:00 <deirdrelee> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130

14:09:13 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> s/ACCEPT/RESOLVED

14:09:58 <yaso> Zakim, mute me

Yaso Córdova: Zakim, mute me ←

14:09:58 <Zakim> yaso should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: yaso should now be muted ←

14:10:10 <phila> Topic: Best Practice document

1. Best Practice document

14:11:05 <phila> PROPOSED: That we re-vote on publication of BP doc

PROPOSED: That we re-vote on publication of BP doc ←

14:11:31 <adler1> q

Steven Adler: q ←

14:11:32 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1

Riccardo Albertoni: +1 ←

14:11:34 <phila> deirdrelee: Alternative would be to publish doc as it was last week

Deirdre Lee: Alternative would be to publish doc as it was last week [ Scribe Assist by Phil Archer ] ←

14:11:46 <adler1> q+

Steven Adler: q+ ←

14:11:50 <BernadetteLoscio> zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio

Bernadette Farias Loscio: zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio ←

14:11:50 <Zakim> BernadetteLoscio should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: BernadetteLoscio should no longer be muted ←

14:11:56 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1 to revote as long as we have a whole week as Deirdre proposes

Joao Almeida: +1 to revote as long as we have a whole week as Deirdre proposes ←

14:11:57 <phila> deirdrelee: Changes made since last week are relatively minor but numerous

Deirdre Lee: Changes made since last week are relatively minor but numerous [ Scribe Assist by Phil Archer ] ←

14:12:10 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> ... to review the document

Joao Almeida: ... to review the document ←

14:12:24 <yaso> Agree with JoaoPauloAlmeida, revote w/1 week to review doc

Yaso Córdova: Agree with JoaoPauloAlmeida, revote w/1 week to review doc ←

14:12:32 <phila> q?

Phil Archer: q? ←

14:12:34 <deirdrelee> ack q

Deirdre Lee: ack q ←

14:12:35 <phila> ack adler1

Phil Archer: ack adler1 ←

14:12:56 <lewismc> Keith has read document, assessment is that 1st draft is good

adler1 has read document, assessment is that 1st draft is good ←

14:13:22 <deirdrelee> s/Keith/adler1

14:13:44 <lewismc> adler1 states that many of the recommendations have been seen elsewhere

adler1 states that many of the recommendations have been seen elsewhere ←

14:14:04 <deirdrelee> adler1: first impression is that document is good, but that many of the recommendations have been seen elsewhere

Steven Adler: : first impression is that document is good, but that many of the recommendations have been seen elsewhere [ Scribe Assist by Deirdre Lee ] ←

14:14:04 <phila> s/adler1/adler1:/

14:14:16 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

14:14:30 <CarlosIglesias> zakim, IPcaller is me

Carlos Iglesias: zakim, IPcaller is me ←

14:14:30 <Zakim> +CarlosIglesias; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +CarlosIglesias; got it ←

14:15:24 <lewismc> adler1: this document represents a table of contents pfor our work

Steven Adler: this document represents a table of contents pfor our work ←

14:15:29 <newton> Zakim, Caroline_ has vagner

Unknown newton: Zakim, Caroline_ has vagner ←

14:15:29 <Zakim> +vagner; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +vagner; got it ←

14:15:39 <lewismc> adler1: enables public to see our work over the next year

Steven Adler: enables public to see our work over the next year ←

14:15:57 <Caroline_> Zakim, Caroline_ has vagner

Caroline Burle: Zakim, Caroline_ has vagner ←

14:15:57 <Zakim> vagner was already listed in Caroline_, Caroline_

Zakim IRC Bot: vagner was already listed in Caroline_, Caroline_ ←

14:15:58 <lewismc> deirdrelee: asked BernadetteLoscio about her options on whether to VOTE next week

Deirdre Lee: asked BernadetteLoscio about her options on whether to VOTE next week ←

14:16:13 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: stated that the group requires more time

Bernadette Farias Loscio: stated that the group requires more time ←

14:16:17 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> q+

Joao Almeida: q+ ←

14:16:41 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: stated the group had a review, acknwledging there was consensus that more needs to be done

Bernadette Farias Loscio: stated the group had a review, acknwledging there was consensus that more needs to be done ←

14:17:30 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: stated that more time is required, however some sections of thr document did not receive comments... due to lack of time

Bernadette Farias Loscio: stated that more time is required, however some sections of thr document did not receive comments... due to lack of time ←

14:18:02 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: stated that it is an incremental process but that more time is required to make those incremental improvements

Bernadette Farias Loscio: stated that it is an incremental process but that more time is required to make those incremental improvements ←

14:18:32 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: the WG requires more time before document goes public

Bernadette Farias Loscio: the WG requires more time before document goes public ←

14:18:40 <lewismc> thank you Caroline_

thank you Caroline_ ←

14:18:50 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> I propose that phila summarize the changes to the document, during the call so that we can decide on this; I understand this would be a defense for a revote?

Joao Almeida: I propose that phila summarize the changes to the document, during the call so that we can decide on this; I understand this would be a defense for a revote? ←

14:18:51 <adler1> good points

Steven Adler: good points ←

14:18:58 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: it is not clear when the document is good enough to become public

Bernadette Farias Loscio: it is not clear when the document is good enough to become public ←

14:19:15 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: if everyone has more time to review we have more time to improve

Bernadette Farias Loscio: if everyone has more time to review we have more time to improve ←

14:19:21 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> lewismc, I don't think this is not what BernadetteLoscio is saying...

Joao Almeida: lewismc, I don't think this is not what BernadetteLoscio is saying... ←

14:19:23 <Caroline_> +1 to BernadetteLoscio

Caroline Burle: +1 to BernadetteLoscio ←

14:19:25 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: this generally needs to be clearer

Bernadette Farias Loscio: this generally needs to be clearer ←

14:20:11 <lewismc> deirdrelee: there were trivial changes but not specifically content changes

Deirdre Lee: there were trivial changes but not specifically content changes ←

14:20:31 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> ack me

Joao Almeida: ack me ←

14:20:32 <lewismc> deirdrelee: prompted phila to comment on background

Deirdre Lee: prompted phila to comment on background ←

14:20:46 <phila> This is the first working draft of this document to be formally published and all text is explicitly open to review. In this first version, 29 best practices are proposed and more than 25 requirements have been addressed. However, there are still many ongoing discussions in the group about important subjects, like terminology and scope. The group is still working towards consensus on the meaning and application of some important terms including: vocabulary, metadat

Phil Archer: This is the first working draft of this document to be formally published and all text is explicitly open to review. In this first version, 29 best practices are proposed and more than 25 requirements have been addressed. However, there are still many ongoing discussions in the group about important subjects, like terminology and scope. The group is still working towards consensus on the meaning and application of some important terms including: vocabulary, metadat ←

14:20:46 <phila> a, data model, data format, schema and dataset. Other important issues relate to the definition of best practices for vocabularies. For example it is not clear if providing advice to data publishers to create and re-use vocabularies is in the scope of the DWBP. Likewise, there is not yet consensus on whether data preservation is in scope. The Working Group is therefore particularly keen to receive comments to ensure that its future work is relevant, useful and comp

Phil Archer: a, data model, data format, schema and dataset. Other important issues relate to the definition of best practices for vocabularies. For example it is not clear if providing advice to data publishers to create and re-use vocabularies is in the scope of the DWBP. Likewise, there is not yet consensus on whether data preservation is in scope. The Working Group is therefore particularly keen to receive comments to ensure that its future work is relevant, useful and comp ←

14:20:47 <phila> rehensive. Please send comments to public-dwbp-wg@w3.org (subscribe, archives).

Phil Archer: rehensive. Please send comments to public-dwbp-wg@w3.org (subscribe, archives). ←

14:21:07 <annette_g> +1 for first sentence

Annette Greiner: +1 for first sentence ←

14:21:13 <lewismc> phila: provide commentary on some proposed and accepted changes to the BPWD

Phil Archer: provide commentary on some proposed and accepted changes to the BPWD ←

14:21:32 <lewismc> phila: document is inconsistent in the way it was represented

Phil Archer: document is inconsistent in the way it was represented ←

14:22:15 <lewismc> phila: template defines a structure

Phil Archer: template defines a structure ←

14:22:31 <lewismc> phila: however that is not what is present within the doument

Phil Archer: however that is not what is present within the doument ←

14:22:49 <lewismc> phila: disagrees with a lot fo the document, however trying not to comment

Phil Archer: disagrees with a lot fo the document, however trying not to comment ←

14:23:16 <lewismc> phila: more work was done by other and phila returned to the document in an effort to make it more consistent

Phil Archer: more work was done by other and phila returned to the document in an effort to make it more consistent ←

14:23:27 <lewismc> phila: substantiative content has not changed much

Phil Archer: substantiative content has not changed much ←

14:23:39 <lewismc> phila: data preservation very confusing

Phil Archer: data preservation very confusing ←

14:24:25 <lewismc> phila: lots of confusing language in this particular section... simplest thing to do was remove preservation section and archive it

Phil Archer: lots of confusing language in this particular section... simplest thing to do was remove preservation section and archive it ←

14:24:40 <lewismc> phila: asking group to look at obtaining consistency

Phil Archer: asking group to look at obtaining consistency ←

14:24:51 <lewismc> phila: would support VOTE'ing next week

Phil Archer: would support VOTE'ing next week ←

14:25:17 <lewismc> phila: if people make comments in coming days, reflect on whether comment should be addressed before we VOTE or afterwards

Phil Archer: if people make comments in coming days, reflect on whether comment should be addressed before we VOTE or afterwards ←

14:25:21 <lewismc> phila: on deadline

Phil Archer: on deadline ←

14:25:25 <deirdrelee> q?

Deirdre Lee: q? ←

14:25:34 <adler1> can't we just leave the original version and publish it, and then review phil's changes and vote on that in a few weeks?

Steven Adler: can't we just leave the original version and publish it, and then review phil's changes and vote on that in a few weeks? ←

14:25:46 <lewismc> phila: one week may not make a different based on fact that we have not published in a year

Phil Archer: one week may not make a different based on fact that we have not published in a year ←

14:25:57 <Caroline_> I think JoaoPauloAlmeida was on the q

Caroline Burle: I think JoaoPauloAlmeida was on the q ←

14:26:04 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> I left the queue

Joao Almeida: I left the queue ←

14:26:09 <yaso> q?

Yaso Córdova: q? ←

14:26:10 <lewismc> deirdrelee: suggesting that VOTE'ing next week

Deirdre Lee: suggesting that VOTE'ing next week ←

14:26:28 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> Caroline, because the proposal I made in the IRC was accepted, so no need to speak :-)

Joao Almeida: Caroline, because the proposal I made in the IRC was accepted, so no need to speak :-) ←

14:26:31 <adler1> q+

Steven Adler: q+ ←

14:26:35 <annette_g> q+

Annette Greiner: q+ ←

14:26:42 <lewismc>  deirdrelee suggesting that quality of content is influx

deirdrelee suggesting that quality of content is influx ←

14:26:47 <Caroline_> sorry, JoaoPauloAlmeida!

Caroline Burle: sorry, JoaoPauloAlmeida! ←

14:27:11 <lewismc> deirdrelee: suggesting that the document seems very much 'up in the air'

Deirdre Lee: suggesting that the document seems very much 'up in the air' ←

14:27:32 <lewismc> deirdrelee: working towards a stable version of the document is very important

Deirdre Lee: working towards a stable version of the document is very important ←

14:27:38 <deirdrelee> ack adler1

Deirdre Lee: ack adler1 ←

14:27:39 <phila> ack adler1

Phil Archer: ack adler1 ←

14:27:45 <phila> q- adler

Phil Archer: q- adler ←

14:27:47 <deirdrelee> ack adler

Deirdre Lee: ack adler ←

14:27:48 <lewismc> adler1: version seems to have a very fixed meaning

Steven Adler: version seems to have a very fixed meaning ←

14:28:20 <lewismc> adler1: what would be the harm... since you VOTE'd last week, to allow the incomplete, incohesive version to go forth and publish

Steven Adler: what would be the harm... since you VOTE'd last week, to allow the incomplete, incohesive version to go forth and publish ←

14:28:32 <lewismc> adler1: then consider phila additions in a week or two

Steven Adler: then consider phila additions in a week or two ←

14:28:38 <lewismc> adler1: allow people to review changes

Steven Adler: allow people to review changes ←

14:28:45 <lewismc> adler1: then publish verion 1.1

Steven Adler: then publish verion 1.1 ←

14:28:52 <lewismc> adler1: then publish 1.2

Steven Adler: then publish 1.2 ←

14:29:09 <lewismc> adler1: questioning if this is the way W3C works

Steven Adler: questioning if this is the way W3C works ←

14:29:32 <lewismc> adler1: would incremental document versioning be acceptable?

Steven Adler: would incremental document versioning be acceptable? ←

14:29:41 <lewismc> phila: versioning is OK

Phil Archer: versioning is OK ←

14:29:59 <lewismc> phila: would be frowned upon if revisions were very close together

Phil Archer: would be frowned upon if revisions were very close together ←

14:30:05 <lewismc> phila: first impressions last

Phil Archer: first impressions last ←

14:30:17 <lewismc> phila: inconsistencies were things which needed to be ironed out

Phil Archer: inconsistencies were things which needed to be ironed out ←

14:30:31 <lewismc> phila: this is just his opinion

Phil Archer: this is just his opinion ←

14:30:40 <lewismc> deirdrelee:

Deirdre Lee: ←

14:31:13 <lewismc> deirdrelee: proposed three options

Deirdre Lee: proposed three options ←

14:31:23 <phila> q+ adler1

Phil Archer: q+ adler1 ←

14:31:30 <phila> ack annette_g

Phil Archer: ack annette_g ←

14:31:43 <deirdrelee> option1 - publish last week's FPWD option2: vote next week for Phil's latest updates option3: push out revote for couple of weeks

Deirdre Lee: option1 - publish last week's FPWD option2: vote next week for Phil's latest updates option3: push out revote for couple of weeks ←

14:31:44 <lewismc> annette_g: require some time to resolve the changes

Annette Greiner: require some time to resolve the changes ←

14:32:03 <lewismc> annette_g: what we need to address the most, what things are in scope

Annette Greiner: what we need to address the most, what things are in scope ←

14:32:05 <phila> q+ to ease timing concerns

Phil Archer: q+ to ease timing concerns ←

14:32:17 <lewismc> annette_g: over next two weeks we need to sope which BP we need to set aside

Annette Greiner: over next two weeks we need to sope which BP we need to set aside ←

14:32:30 <lewismc> annette_g: at least we would have structure which people can comment on

Annette Greiner: at least we would have structure which people can comment on ←

14:32:42 <lewismc> deirdrelee: can you please add your threee options?

Deirdre Lee: can you please add your threee options? ←

14:32:46 <adler1> do the teams have the energy and time to do the extra work necessary in a short time frame?

Steven Adler: do the teams have the energy and time to do the extra work necessary in a short time frame? ←

14:33:14 <phila> ack adler1

Phil Archer: ack adler1 ←

14:34:22 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> q

Joao Almeida: q ←

14:34:23 <phila> ack me

Phil Archer: ack me ←

14:34:23 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to ease timing concerns

Zakim IRC Bot: phila, you wanted to ease timing concerns ←

14:34:23 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> q+

Joao Almeida: q+ ←

14:34:43 <annette_g> *thinks we need pressure*

Annette Greiner: *thinks we need pressure* ←

14:35:03 <lewismc> adler1: concerned of impact of the team if we undo the VOTE

Steven Adler: concerned of impact of the team if we undo the VOTE ←

14:35:47 <deirdrelee> q?

Deirdre Lee: q? ←

14:35:50 <lewismc> phila: any document gets mention on W3C homepage, presented to W3C team follwing thursday, triggers legal process, 90 days to make essentisl claims on IP

Phil Archer: any document gets mention on W3C homepage, presented to W3C team follwing thursday, triggers legal process, 90 days to make essentisl claims on IP ←

14:36:00 <lewismc> ... ease tensions on timing

... ease tensions on timing ←

14:36:19 <adler1> whew

Steven Adler: whew ←

14:36:19 <lewismc> ... no troubles at all to convinve others that the group requires more time

... no troubles at all to convinve others that the group requires more time ←

14:36:22 <vagner> q+ to say I am not comfortable with the situation. Last week we were under pressure to vote. We did it? Suddenly we got to know few changes needed. Now, we got to know the document is not consistent and we need more time to read it over and review. We need some clear orientation about when we have to finish it in order to know how much time we reealy have to work on it

Vagner Diniz: q+ to say I am not comfortable with the situation. Last week we were under pressure to vote. We did it? Suddenly we got to know few changes needed. Now, we got to know the document is not consistent and we need more time to read it over and review. We need some clear orientation about when we have to finish it in order to know how much time we reealy have to work on it ←

14:36:39 <deirdrelee> ack JoaoPauloAlmeida

Deirdre Lee: ack JoaoPauloAlmeida ←

14:36:52 <lewismc> JoaoPauloAlmeida: have people made all the changes they wanted to for this public working draft?

Joao Almeida: have people made all the changes they wanted to for this public working draft? ←

14:36:53 <lewismc> ...

... ←

14:37:07 <lewismc> ... has feeling we did not

... has feeling we did not ←

14:37:30 <lewismc> ... are the proposed changes already there or does this just open the box again?

... are the proposed changes already there or does this just open the box again? ←

14:37:53 <lewismc> phila: this will not be the case

Phil Archer: this will not be the case ←

14:38:06 <phila> ack vagner

Phil Archer: ack vagner ←

14:38:07 <Zakim> vagner, you wanted to say I am not comfortable with the situation. Last week we were under pressure to vote. We did it? Suddenly we got to know few changes needed. Now, we got to

Zakim IRC Bot: vagner, you wanted to say I am not comfortable with the situation. Last week we were under pressure to vote. We did it? Suddenly we got to know few changes needed. Now, we got to ←

14:38:08 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> that makes me comfortable to review Phil's changes and revote

Joao Almeida: that makes me comfortable to review Phil's changes and revote ←

14:38:09 <deirdrelee> ack vagner

Deirdre Lee: ack vagner ←

14:38:10 <Zakim> ... know the document is not consistent and we need more time to read it over and review. We need some clear orientation about when we have to finish it in order to know how much

Zakim IRC Bot: ... know the document is not consistent and we need more time to read it over and review. We need some clear orientation about when we have to finish it in order to know how much ←

14:38:10 <Zakim> ... time we reealy have to work on it

Zakim IRC Bot: ... time we reealy have to work on it ←

14:39:42 <phila> q+ to offer you a deadline

Phil Archer: q+ to offer you a deadline ←

14:39:43 <adler1> valid risk

Steven Adler: valid risk ←

14:40:21 <lewismc> vagner: support BernadetteLoscio comments, not comfortable with back and forth situation. We are under pressure to publish. Last week document needed review. The team worked hard this week in order to finish it for VOTE'ing. Now it turns out that VOTE'ing is not happening today. we need clear deadlines for finishing the document.

Vagner Diniz: support BernadetteLoscio comments, not comfortable with back and forth situation. We are under pressure to publish. Last week document needed review. The team worked hard this week in order to finish it for VOTE'ing. Now it turns out that VOTE'ing is not happening today. we need clear deadlines for finishing the document. ←

14:40:37 <lewismc> phila: understands frustration

Phil Archer: understands frustration ←

14:40:48 <lewismc> ... suggestion on new deadline

... suggestion on new deadline ←

14:41:02 <lewismc> ... adler1 promised we would visit COMURI document

... adler1 promised we would visit COMURI document ←

14:41:17 <lewismc> ... propose meeting on 13 to COMURI

... propose meeting on 13 to COMURI ←

14:41:18 <deirdrelee> q+

Deirdre Lee: q+ ←

14:41:23 <deirdrelee> ack phila

Deirdre Lee: ack phila ←

14:41:23 <Zakim> phila, you wanted to offer you a deadline

Zakim IRC Bot: phila, you wanted to offer you a deadline ←

14:41:28 <lewismc> ... next week could be considered a deadline on 1st working draft

... next week could be considered a deadline on 1st working draft ←

14:41:46 <lewismc> deirdrelee: possibly throwing something else in to the mix

Deirdre Lee: possibly throwing something else in to the mix ←

14:42:15 <lewismc> ... two question for today (1) do we go ahead with draft with draft from last week without changes from this week?

... two question for today (1) do we go ahead with draft with draft from last week without changes from this week? ←

14:42:17 <BernadetteLoscio> q

Bernadette Farias Loscio: q ←

14:42:22 <adler1> the problem I have with extending the deadline is that we are effectively saying that the chairs can extend deadlines when they want to and if we do that more than once we lose credibility for the very notion of deadlines

Steven Adler: the problem I have with extending the deadline is that we are effectively saying that the chairs can extend deadlines when they want to and if we do that more than once we lose credibility for the very notion of deadlines ←

14:42:23 <BernadetteLoscio> q+

Bernadette Farias Loscio: q+ ←

14:42:41 <lewismc> ... (2) the chanes that have been made this week e.g. consistency, should we VOTE on this next week

... (2) the changes that have been made this week e.g. consistency, should we VOTE on this next week ←

14:42:42 <lewismc> ...

... ←

14:42:46 <phila> PROPOSED: That we publish the version that was voted on last week without the changes made since then

PROPOSED: That we publish the version that was voted on last week without the changes made since then ←

14:42:59 <newton> s/chanes/changes/g

14:43:02 <lewismc> ... we don't have an option to put it off

... we don't have an option to put it off ←

14:43:09 <deirdrelee> ack deirdrelee

Deirdre Lee: ack deirdrelee ←

14:43:24 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: we don't feel comfortable version from last week

Bernadette Farias Loscio: we don't feel comfortable version from last week ←

14:43:47 <lewismc> ... its better to have more time, this is the option of th editors

... its better to have more time, this is the option of th editors ←

14:44:03 <lewismc> deirdrelee: draw line int he sand about VOTE next week?

Deirdre Lee: draw line int he sand about VOTE next week? ←

14:44:21 <lewismc> ... are you happy to publish version today?

... are you happy to publish version today? ←

14:44:27 <vagner> q+ to say that after so many comments os current document it is NOT CONSISTENT to publish the document as iit was voted last week.

Vagner Diniz: q+ to say that after so many comments os current document it is NOT CONSISTENT to publish the document as iit was voted last week. ←

14:44:29 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: we need more time

Bernadette Farias Loscio: we need more time ←

14:44:54 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> q+

Joao Almeida: q+ ←

14:44:58 <lewismc> phila: we can re-VOTE to put it off

Phil Archer: we can re-VOTE to put it off ←

14:45:01 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio

Deirdre Lee: ack BernadetteLoscio ←

14:45:17 <lewismc> phila: we could take a VOTE on whether last weeks VOTE stands

Phil Archer: we could take a VOTE on whether last weeks VOTE stands ←

14:45:39 <lewismc> ... can we push for a VOTE in three of four weeks time?

... can we push for a VOTE in three of four weeks time? ←

14:45:44 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> I see three options: (1) keep last week's version; (2) freeze today, and vote next week; (3) backtrack completely and have more time

Joao Almeida: I see three options: (1) keep last week's version; (2) freeze today, and vote next week; (3) backtrack completely and have more time ←

14:45:45 <lewismc> ... timeline is very useful

... timeline is very useful ←

14:45:58 <lewismc> ... overstepped his role

... overstepped his role ←

14:46:18 <lewismc> ... tell him to shut up or just accept the changes

... tell him to shut up or just accept the changes ←

14:46:33 <phila> q?

Phil Archer: q? ←

14:46:59 <phila> deirdrelee: Should we publish as we voted last week, should we pubich next week, or vote to publush in a few weeks' time

Deirdre Lee: Should we publish as we voted last week, should we pubich next week, or vote to publush in a few weeks' time [ Scribe Assist by Phil Archer ] ←

14:47:06 <lewismc> deirdrelee: (1) publish last weeks (2) should we VOTE next week (3) VOTE in 3 weeks and leave it to editors

Deirdre Lee: (1) publish last weeks (2) should we VOTE next week (3) VOTE in 3 weeks and leave it to editors ←

14:47:19 <lewismc> vagner: feels uncomfortable VOTE'ing on document as it is

Vagner Diniz: feels uncomfortable VOTE'ing on document as it is ←

14:47:54 <lewismc> ... the chairs need to clarify thier situation and help direct the group

... the chairs need to clarify thier situation and help direct the group ←

14:48:04 <lewismc> ... only a few people actually debating VOTE'ing, etc

... only a few people actually debating VOTE'ing, etc ←

14:48:19 <lewismc> ... are the rest of the group actually concerned about this debate?

... are the rest of the group actually concerned about this debate? ←

14:48:29 <lewismc> ... the group are lost on this topic

... the group are lost on this topic ←

14:48:45 <lewismc> deirdrelee: fair points , would love to hear other opinions

Deirdre Lee: fair points , would love to hear other opinions ←

14:49:10 <MakxDekkers> I ma definitely lost

Makx Dekkers: I ma definitely lost ←

14:49:11 <lewismc> deirdrelee: we need to have decisions and not just have things hanging, but maybe after this week

Deirdre Lee: we need to have decisions and not just have things hanging, but maybe after this week ←

14:49:37 <lewismc> adler1: we need to consider how the work is being appreciated

Steven Adler: we need to consider how the work is being appreciated ←

14:49:45 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> q+

Joao Almeida: q+ ←

14:49:50 <MakxDekkers> I think we should first get the document in shape before we even consider voting on publication

Makx Dekkers: I think we should first get the document in shape before we even consider voting on publication ←

14:49:53 <adler1> we all want to be proud of the work we create

Steven Adler: we all want to be proud of the work we create ←

14:50:04 <lewismc> JoaoPauloAlmeida: are we overreacting to proposals?

Joao Almeida: are we overreacting to proposals? ←

14:50:04 <MakxDekkers> It's why I abstained last week

Makx Dekkers: It's why I abstained last week ←

14:50:11 <deirdrelee> ack va

Deirdre Lee: ack va ←

14:50:11 <Zakim> vagner, you wanted to say that after so many comments os current document it is NOT CONSISTENT to publish the document as iit was voted last week.

Zakim IRC Bot: vagner, you wanted to say that after so many comments on current document it is NOT CONSISTENT to publish the document as iit was voted last week. ←

14:50:13 <deirdrelee> ack vagner

Deirdre Lee: ack vagner ←

14:50:16 <deirdrelee> ack JoaoPauloAlmeida

Deirdre Lee: ack JoaoPauloAlmeida ←

14:50:53 <BernadetteLoscio> q+

Bernadette Farias Loscio: q+ ←

14:50:57 <lewismc> ... it looks like this weeks version is better than lasts week however unsure right now, backing option (2) for the time being

... it looks like this weeks version is better than lasts week however unsure right now, backing option (2) for the time being ←

14:51:03 <lewismc> ... feels that people are overreacting

... feels that people are overreacting ←

14:51:12 <vagner> s/os current/on current/

14:51:23 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: we need more time not just about changes for this week

Bernadette Farias Loscio: we need more time not just about changes for this week ←

14:51:50 <lewismc> ... changes were good and scope to review in 1 week is OK

... changes were good and scope to review in 1 week is OK ←

14:51:53 <Zakim> -yaso

Zakim IRC Bot: -yaso ←

14:51:56 <phila> q+

Phil Archer: q+ ←

14:51:57 <lewismc> ... however the document is not stable

... however the document is not stable ←

14:52:05 <deirdrelee> ack BernadetteLoscio

Deirdre Lee: ack BernadetteLoscio ←

14:52:06 <lewismc> ... unsure about making the document public

... unsure about making the document public ←

14:52:25 <lewismc> ... not sure if the document is good enough to be a 1st public working draft

... not sure if the document is good enough to be a 1st public working draft ←

14:52:39 <lewismc> ... if it is not good enough then it needs more time

... if it is not good enough then it needs more time ←

14:52:42 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

14:52:46 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> but we all though it was good enough last week (with only one abstention!)

Joao Almeida: but we all though it was good enough last week (with only one abstention!) ←

14:52:49 <yaso> Zakim, IPcaller is yaso

Yaso Córdova: Zakim, IPcaller is yaso ←

14:52:49 <Zakim> +yaso; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +yaso; got it ←

14:52:54 <lewismc> ... we need more time

... we need more time ←

14:53:29 <deirdrelee> q?

Deirdre Lee: q? ←

14:53:31 <lewismc> phila: it is good enough for it to be public working draft I have no intentions to make changes over the next week

Phil Archer: it is good enough for it to be public working draft I have no intentions to make changes over the next week ←

14:53:41 <vagner> my questions for clarificarion from chairs and Phil are: (1) do we really have a deadline? If yes, when it is? (2) Is the current version of the document inconsistent? If yes, where it is consistent and how many time we have to work on it?

Vagner Diniz: my questions for clarificarion from chairs and Phil are: (1) do we really have a deadline? If yes, when it is? (2) Is the current version of the document inconsistent? If yes, where it is consistent and how much time we have to work on it? ←

14:53:44 <adler1> I feel a good compromise to take a week to read the changes and vote next week

Steven Adler: I feel a good compromise to take a week to read the changes and vote next week ←

14:53:46 <phila> q-

Phil Archer: q- ←

14:53:54 <lewismc> deirdrelee: appreciated vagner POV about uncertainty

Deirdre Lee: appreciated vagner POV about uncertainty ←

14:54:07 <lewismc> ... will address this within the group

... will address this within the group ←

14:54:12 <Zakim> -yaso

Zakim IRC Bot: -yaso ←

14:54:13 <vagner> s/how many/how much/

14:54:35 <lewismc> PROPOSED: go ahead and publish what we VOTE'd on last week

PROPOSED: go ahead and publish what we VOTE'd on last week ←

14:54:48 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> -1 given that we now have a potentially better version concerning consistency

Joao Almeida: -1 given that we now have a potentially better version concerning consistency ←

14:54:50 <phila> -1

Phil Archer: -1 ←

14:54:53 <Eric_Kauz> -1

Eric Kauz: -1 ←

14:54:53 <riccardoAlbertoni> -1

Riccardo Albertoni: -1 ←

14:54:54 <MakxDekkers> -1

Makx Dekkers: -1 ←

14:54:55 <vagner> -1

Vagner Diniz: -1 ←

14:54:56 <adler1> -1

Steven Adler: -1 ←

14:54:56 <jerdeb> -1

Jeremy Debattista: -1 ←

14:54:56 <annette_g> -1

Annette Greiner: -1 ←

14:54:58 <yaso> -1

Yaso Córdova: -1 ←

14:55:00 <newton> -1

Unknown newton: -1 ←

14:55:00 <deirdrelee> 0

Deirdre Lee: 0 ←

14:55:04 <BernadetteLoscio> -1

Bernadette Farias Loscio: -1 ←

14:55:07 <Caroline_> -1

Caroline Burle: -1 ←

14:55:09 <CarlosIglesias> -1

Carlos Iglesias: -1 ←

14:55:10 <AdrianoC-UFMG> -1

Adriano Pereira: -1 ←

14:55:11 <lewismc> lewismc: 0

Lewis Mcgibbney: 0 ←

14:55:30 <phila> RESOLVED: That we will NOT publish the doc as voted on last week

RESOLVED: That we will NOT publish the doc as voted on last week ←

14:55:48 <adler1> +1

Steven Adler: +1 ←

14:55:49 <lewismc> PROPOSED: whatever the draft is today, we publish whatever is current document today at next fridays call

PROPOSED: whatever the draft is today, we publish whatever is current document today at next fridays call ←

14:55:50 <phila> PROPOSED: That we freeze the current version and puiblish to vote next Friday

PROPOSED: That we freeze the current version and puiblish to vote next Friday ←

14:55:55 <riccardoAlbertoni> +1

Riccardo Albertoni: +1 ←

14:55:56 <annette_g> -1

Annette Greiner: -1 ←

14:55:56 <adler1> +1

Steven Adler: +1 ←

14:56:00 <Eric_Kauz> +1

Eric Kauz: +1 ←

14:56:02 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

Joao Almeida: +1 ←

14:56:07 <CarlosIglesias> 0

Carlos Iglesias: 0 ←

14:56:11 <lewismc> +1

+1 ←

14:56:12 <jerdeb> 0

Jeremy Debattista: 0 ←

14:56:13 <deirdrelee> 0

Deirdre Lee: 0 ←

14:56:16 <phila> +1 to vote next week after a bit more review

Phil Archer: +1 to vote next week after a bit more review ←

14:56:27 <MakxDekkers> 0

Makx Dekkers: 0 ←

14:56:34 <yaso> +1 to vote next week w review

Yaso Córdova: +1 to vote next week w review ←

14:56:40 <newton> -1

Unknown newton: -1 ←

14:56:46 <vagner> 0

Vagner Diniz: 0 ←

14:56:51 <BernadetteLoscio> 0

Bernadette Farias Loscio: 0 ←

14:56:54 <Caroline_> 0

Caroline Burle: 0 ←

14:56:54 <nathalia> 0

Nathalia Sautchuk Patrício: 0 ←

14:57:39 <phila> deirdrelee: Next week we can vote on whetehr we'll vote the following week

Deirdre Lee: Next week we can vote on whetehr we'll vote the following week [ Scribe Assist by Phil Archer ] ←

14:57:49 <lewismc> RESOLVED: spend this week reviewing it, next week come together and repeat VOTE about VOTE'ing next week

RESOLVED: spend this week reviewing it, next week come together and repeat VOTE about VOTE'ing next week ←

14:58:00 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> Phila, could you please summarize in a single email to the list all changes made with a short motivation?

Joao Almeida: Phila, could you please summarize in a single email to the list all changes made with a short motivation? ←

14:58:03 <phila> deirdrelee: not sure how that affects deadlines and timelines

Deirdre Lee: not sure how that affects deadlines and timelines [ Scribe Assist by Phil Archer ] ←

14:58:06 <phila> +1 to deirdrelee

Phil Archer: +1 to deirdrelee ←

14:58:06 <adler1> +1

Steven Adler: +1 ←

14:58:10 <jerdeb> +1

Jeremy Debattista: +1 ←

14:58:11 <annette_g> +1 to Deirdre

Annette Greiner: +1 to Deirdre ←

14:58:21 <CarlosIglesias> please, note also that multiple review extensions will lead the group to nowhere if we are not really to be actually reviewing something

Carlos Iglesias: please, note also that multiple review extensions will lead the group to nowhere if we are not really to be actually reviewing something ←

14:58:27 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> +1

Joao Almeida: +1 ←

14:58:29 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: it is OK

Bernadette Farias Loscio: it is OK ←

14:58:44 <nathalia> 0

Nathalia Sautchuk Patrício: 0 ←

14:58:45 <AdrianoC-UFMG> 0

Adriano Pereira: 0 ←

14:58:48 <riccardoAlbertoni> 0

Riccardo Albertoni: 0 ←

14:58:53 <lewismc> deirdrelee: maybe it would be good for BernadetteLoscio to review the changes directly with the editors

Deirdre Lee: maybe it would be good for BernadetteLoscio to review the changes directly with the editors ←

14:58:56 <CarlosIglesias> we have seen few reviews/comments on the mailing list so far

Carlos Iglesias: we have seen few reviews/comments on the mailing list so far ←

14:59:08 <lewismc> BernadetteLoscio: someone will try and be there

Bernadette Farias Loscio: someone will try and be there ←

14:59:13 <phila> JoaoPauloAlmeida see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0299.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0313.html

Phil Archer: JoaoPauloAlmeida see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0299.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0313.html ←

14:59:22 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> thanks

Joao Almeida: thanks ←

14:59:38 <Caroline_> +1 to CarlosIglesias

Caroline Burle: +1 to CarlosIglesias ←

14:59:40 <lewismc> deirdrelee: we touched nothing of the agenda

Deirdre Lee: we touched nothing of the agenda ←

14:59:51 <phila> That was my fault, changes were made *after* the chairs' meeting on Tuesday

Phil Archer: That was my fault, changes were made *after* the chairs' meeting on Tuesday ←

14:59:55 <lewismc> ... face to face meeting email will be discussed on email

... face to face meeting email will be discussed on email ←

15:00:11 <phila> Thanks Dee - great chairing!

Phil Archer: Thanks Dee - great chairing! ←

15:00:16 <phila> Thanks to Lewis for scribing

Phil Archer: Thanks to Lewis for scribing ←

15:00:19 <Zakim> -Steve

Zakim IRC Bot: -Steve ←

15:00:22 <JoaoPauloAlmeida> bye

Joao Almeida: bye ←

15:00:23 <riccardoAlbertoni> Thanks, Have a good week end!

Riccardo Albertoni: Thanks, Have a good week end! ←

15:00:25 <Zakim> -lewismc

Zakim IRC Bot: -lewismc ←

15:00:25 <nathalia> bye

Nathalia Sautchuk Patrício: bye ←

15:00:26 <Zakim> -annette_g

Zakim IRC Bot: -annette_g ←

15:00:27 <jerdeb> bye

Jeremy Debattista: bye ←

15:00:27 <Caroline_> bye!

Caroline Burle: bye! ←

15:00:27 <Zakim> -Eric_Kauz

Zakim IRC Bot: -Eric_Kauz ←

15:00:28 <Zakim> -JoaoPauloAlmeida

Zakim IRC Bot: -JoaoPauloAlmeida ←

15:00:29 <Zakim> -BernadetteLoscio

Zakim IRC Bot: -BernadetteLoscio ←

15:00:32 <Zakim> -phila

Zakim IRC Bot: -phila ←

15:00:33 <Zakim> -deirdrelee

Zakim IRC Bot: -deirdrelee ←

15:00:38 <Zakim> -riccardoAlbertoni

Zakim IRC Bot: -riccardoAlbertoni ←

15:00:41 <Zakim> -jerdeb

Zakim IRC Bot: -jerdeb ←

15:00:51 <Zakim> -Caroline_

Zakim IRC Bot: -Caroline_ ←

15:01:14 <annette_g> bye all!

Annette Greiner: bye all! ←

15:01:14 <Zakim> -CarlosIglesias

Zakim IRC Bot: -CarlosIglesias ←

15:01:15 <Zakim> DATA_DWBP()9:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: DATA_DWBP()9:00AM has ended ←

15:01:15 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.609.557.aaaa, +1.626.487.aabb, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida, Eric_Kauz, Steve, lewismc, jerdeb, nathalia, newton,

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.609.557.aaaa, +1.626.487.aabb, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida, Eric_Kauz, Steve, lewismc, jerdeb, nathalia, newton, ←

15:01:15 <Zakim> ... BernadetteLoscio, yaso, CarlosIglesias, vagner

Zakim IRC Bot: ... BernadetteLoscio, yaso, CarlosIglesias, vagner ←

15:01:19 <yaso> bye!

Yaso Córdova: bye! ←

15:01:22 <lewismc> by folks have a nice weekend

by folks have a nice weekend ←

15:01:27 <AdrianoC-UFMG> Bye

Adriano Pereira: Bye ←

Formatted by CommonScribe