14:58:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/12/01-ldp-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/12/01-ldp-irc ←
14:58:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
14:58:20 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be LDP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be LDP ←
14:58:20 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_LDP()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes ←
14:58:21 <trackbot> Meeting: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Teleconference
14:58:21 <trackbot> Date: 01 December 2014
15:00:32 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has now started ←
15:00:39 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:01:05 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:01:12 <Zakim> +deiu
Zakim IRC Bot: +deiu ←
15:01:23 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:01:29 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:01:29 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:01:31 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:01:31 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:01:37 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:01:40 <bblfish> hi
Henry Story: hi ←
15:01:52 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ashok_Malhotra ←
15:01:55 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
15:01:56 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
15:02:03 <SteveS> zakim, [ibm] is me
Steve Speicher: zakim, [ibm] is me ←
15:02:03 <Zakim> +SteveS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveS; got it ←
15:02:12 <pchampin> zakim, ??P14 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P14 is me ←
15:02:12 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:02:35 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:02:50 <codyburleson> Zakim, IPcaller is me
Cody Burleson: Zakim, IPcaller is me ←
15:02:50 <Zakim> +codyburleson; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +codyburleson; got it ←
15:03:48 <bblfish> yes, I could scribe
Henry Story: yes, I could scribe ←
15:03:56 <bblfish> but I may fall off due to bad connection
Henry Story: but I may fall off due to bad connection ←
<bblfish> scribe: bblfish
(Scribe set to Henry Story)
<bblfish> chair: Arnaud
<bblfish> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.12.01
15:04:46 <bblfish> Topic: Admin
15:04:51 <Arnaud> Proposal: Approve the minutes of the 24 November teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-11-24
PROPOSED: Approve the minutes of the 24 November teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-11-24 ←
15:05:02 <Arnaud> Resolved: Approve the minutes of the 24 November teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-11-24
RESOLVED: Approve the minutes of the 24 November teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-11-24 ←
15:05:21 <bblfish> will meet next time December 8
will meet next time December 8 ←
15:05:38 <bblfish> ( I will be at Scala eXchange in London, so probably won't be able to make it )
( I will be at Scala eXchange in London, so probably won't be able to make it ) ←
15:05:46 <Zakim> +Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: +Alexandre ←
<bblfish> Tracking of Actions and Issues
Tracking of Actions and Issues ←
15:05:58 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-102: Negative indexes in Slice-s
PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-102: Negative indexes in Slice-s ←
15:06:00 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:06:02 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
15:06:04 <pchampin> +1
15:06:09 <bblfish> +1
+1 ←
15:06:10 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:06:18 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-102: Negative indexes in Slice-s
RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-102: Negative indexes in Slice-s ←
15:06:24 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-103: Hard vs silent fail on missing delete triples
PROPOSED: Open ISSUE-103: Hard vs silent fail on missing delete triples ←
15:06:29 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:06:29 <pchampin> +1
15:06:30 <betehess> +1
Alexandre Bertails: +1 ←
15:06:32 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:06:34 <codyburleson> 0
Cody Burleson: 0 ←
15:06:36 <bblfish> +1
+1 ←
15:06:38 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:06:43 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-103: Hard vs silent fail on missing delete triples
RESOLVED: Open ISSUE-103: Hard vs silent fail on missing delete triples ←
15:07:06 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
<bblfish> topic: LDP and Paging specs status
<bblfish> Arnaud: call with W3M went very well
Arnaud Le Hors: call with W3M went very well ←
<bblfish> ... were asked to clarify the abstract
... were asked to clarify the abstract ←
<bblfish> ... for PR we will have a 4 week review period
... for PR we will have a 4 week review period ←
<bblfish> ... make sure your AC rep responds to the questionnaire
... make sure your AC rep responds to the questionnaire ←
15:11:32 <bblfish> Topic: LDPatch issues
15:10:58 <SteveS> ISSUE-102?
15:10:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-102 -- Negative indexes in Slice-s -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-102 -- Negative indexes in Slice-s -- raised ←
15:10:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/102
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/102 ←
15:12:22 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:12:52 <bblfish> deiu: repeating the position on the issue
Andrei Sambra: repeating the position on the issue ←
15:13:22 <bblfish> It broke up a bit for me here
It broke up a bit for me here ←
15:13:28 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:13:30 <bblfish> I don't think I am hearing that well
I don't think I am hearing that well ←
15:14:15 <bblfish> It's not going to be that good for me to take notes here
It's not going to be that good for me to take notes here ←
15:14:21 <bblfish> I can't hear the arguments
I can't hear the arguments ←
<pchampin> scribe: pchampin
(Scribe set to Pierre-Antoine Champin)
15:14:54 <pchampin> betehess: Tim's remark about list indexes is two-fold
Alexandre Bertails: Tim's remark about list indexes is two-fold ←
15:15:19 <pchampin> ... 1/ editorial remark, suggesting we describe list operations at a higher level
... 1/ editorial remark, suggesting we describe list operations at a higher level ←
15:15:30 <pchampin> ... without relying on rdf:first and rdf:rest
... without relying on rdf:first and rdf:rest ←
15:15:46 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
15:16:06 <pchampin> ... 2/ Tim suggested we allowed negative indexes as they are used in Python
... 2/ Tim suggested we allowed negative indexes as they are used in Python ←
15:16:19 <pchampin> ... to denote elements from the end of the list
... to denote elements from the end of the list ←
15:16:46 <pchampin> ... which we think is bad, as the implementation would have to browse the entire list to know its size
... which we think is bad, as the implementation would have to browse the entire list to know its size ←
15:17:07 <TallTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's noisy? ←
15:17:14 <pchampin> sandro: this should be done, the use case where I want to insert elements to the end of a list
Sandro Hawke: this should be done, the use case where I want to insert elements to the end of a list ←
15:17:17 <Zakim> TallTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ericP (59%), Arnaud (9%), deiu (4%)
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ericP (59%), Arnaud (9%), deiu (4%) ←
15:17:24 <TallTed> Zakim, mute ericP
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute ericP ←
15:17:24 <Zakim> ericP should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP should now be muted ←
15:17:28 <pchampin> ... without having to know the size of the list, is a very useful one
... without having to know the size of the list, is a very useful one ←
15:17:46 <betehess> my remark is more like that: there is a little _computational_ cost, but nothing I am afraid of, especially compared to what it can bring, as Sandro said :-)
Alexandre Bertails: my remark is more like that: there is a little _computational_ cost, but nothing I am afraid of, especially compared to what it can bring, as Sandro said :-) ←
15:17:48 <pchampin> ... there is no additional cost (although scribe didn't really get the argument here)
... there is no additional cost (although scribe didn't really get the argument here) ←
15:18:11 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-102 adding Negative indexes in Slice-s
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-102 adding Negative indexes in Slice-s ←
15:18:12 <pchampin> q+
q+ ←
15:18:25 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin ←
15:18:32 <betehess> +0.99
Alexandre Bertails: +0.99 ←
15:19:31 <SteveS> +1
Steve Speicher: +1 ←
15:19:37 <deiu> +1
Andrei Sambra: +1 ←
15:19:38 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:19:40 <Ashok> +1
Ashok Malhotra: +1 ←
15:19:44 <ericP> sandro: +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
15:19:48 <pchampin> pchampin: if we add them in slices, it raises the question of adding them in paths as well
Pierre-Antoine Champin: if we add them in slices, it raises the question of adding them in paths as well ←
15:19:55 <TallTed> +0.75
Ted Thibodeau: +0.75 ←
15:20:13 <codyburleson> 0
Cody Burleson: 0 ←
15:20:18 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:20:18 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:20:20 <pchampin> pchampin: +1
15:20:31 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:20:31 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:20:34 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-102 adding Negative indexes in Slice-s
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-102 adding Negative indexes in Slice-s ←
15:20:53 <Arnaud> ISSUE-103: Hard vs silent fail on missing delete triples
Arnaud Le Hors: ISSUE-103: Hard vs silent fail on missing delete triples ←
15:20:53 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-103 Hard vs silent fail on missing delete triples.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Notes added to ISSUE-103 Hard vs silent fail on missing delete triples. ←
15:21:33 <pchampin> betehess: in the current spec, Delete fails if asked to delete non-existing triples
Alexandre Bertails: in the current spec, Delete fails if asked to delete non-existing triples ←
15:22:29 <Ashok> q+
Ashok Malhotra: q+ ←
15:22:32 <pchampin> ... others would prefer that Delete silently pass on non-existing triples
... others would prefer that Delete silently pass on non-existing triples ←
15:22:37 <SteveS> q+
Steve Speicher: q+ ←
15:22:45 <pchampin> ... as the intention is simply that the triple be absent in the resulting graph
... as the intention is simply that the triple be absent in the resulting graph ←
15:23:10 <pchampin> ... and that stronger constraints should be handled with ETags for example
... and that stronger constraints should be handled with ETags for example ←
15:23:54 <pchampin> ashok: why would this be an error to delete a non-existing triple?
Ashok Malhotra: why would this be an error to delete a non-existing triple? ←
15:24:23 <pchampin> betehess: Tim wants to be able to detect if someone changed the resource in between
Alexandre Bertails: Tim wants to be able to detect if someone changed the resource in between ←
15:24:51 <deiu> q+
Andrei Sambra: q+ ←
15:24:59 <pchampin> ... and does not want to use etags for this, but rather optimistic concurrency
... and does not want to use etags for this, but rather optimistic concurrency ←
15:25:22 <Arnaud> ack Ashok
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Ashok ←
15:25:26 <pchampin> ashok: would it be ok to simply raise a warning?
Ashok Malhotra: would it be ok to simply raise a warning? ←
15:25:49 <pchampin> sandro: I would not be ok, because he does not want the change to happen
Sandro Hawke: I would not be ok, because he does not want the change to happen ←
15:25:53 <Arnaud> ack SteveS
Arnaud Le Hors: ack SteveS ←
15:26:04 <pchampin> betehess: if we start with warnings, we would need a way to "rollback"
Alexandre Bertails: if we start with warnings, we would need a way to "rollback" ←
15:26:46 <pchampin> steves: why focus on delete; part of the discussion was also about Add, not failing when asked to add an *existing* triple
Steve Speicher: why focus on delete; part of the discussion was also about Add, not failing when asked to add an *existing* triple ←
15:26:50 <Arnaud> ack deiu
Arnaud Le Hors: ack deiu ←
15:27:18 <pchampin> betehess: that's true, but Tim's remark was about Delete only
Alexandre Bertails: that's true, but Tim's remark was about Delete only ←
15:27:20 <betehess> I think that solving the issue for Delete will provide a similar solution for Add
Alexandre Bertails: I think that solving the issue for Delete will provide a similar solution for Add ←
15:27:43 <Arnaud> ack sandro
Arnaud Le Hors: ack sandro ←
15:27:44 <pchampin> deiu: ETags do not make sense when several people are changing different parts of the same resource
Andrei Sambra: ETags do not make sense when several people are changing different parts of the same resource ←
15:29:20 <pchampin> sandro: if you have to change independently parts of a resource, you should probably have several resources
Sandro Hawke: if you have to change independently parts of a resource, you should probably have several resources ←
15:29:41 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
15:30:13 <SteveS> I like to say, I put in my patch the desired end state of my resource…so operations will not be needed to achieve that
Steve Speicher: I like to say, I put in my patch the desired end state of my resource…some operations will not be needed to achieve that ←
15:30:18 <pchampin> arnaud: may be we should not express this in terms of silent fail
Arnaud Le Hors: may be we should not express this in terms of silent fail ←
15:30:24 <SteveS> s/so operations/some operations/
15:30:29 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:30:29 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:30:29 <ericP> note that SQL has syntax switches for this
Eric Prud'hommeaux: note that SQL has syntax switches for this ←
15:30:32 <betehess> solutions: a) 2 modes are supported b) delete on missing triple fails c) delete on missing triple does not fail
Alexandre Bertails: solutions: a) 2 modes are supported b) delete on missing triple fails c) delete on missing triple does not fail ←
15:30:32 <pchampin> ... but in terms of what the LD Patch is asking
... but in terms of what the LD Patch is asking ←
15:31:12 <pchampin> ... if Delete asks that the triple is not there in the resultin graph,
... if Delete asks that the triple is not there in the resultin graph, ←
15:31:20 <pchampin> ... then it is a success if the triple is already not there
... then it is a success if the triple is already not there ←
15:31:21 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:31:30 <pchampin> ... and symmetric for Add
... and symmetric for Add ←
15:31:42 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:31:49 <pchampin> ... So one possibility is to have two variants of Add and Delete
... So one possibility is to have two variants of Add and Delete ←
15:32:00 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:32:20 <pchampin> ... Another one is to have Assertions (as proposed by pchampin on the mailing list)
... Another one is to have Assertions (as proposed by pchampin on the mailing list) ←
15:32:22 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:32:22 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:32:35 <pchampin> betehess: a third way is to have a global mode for the patch, lax or strict
Alexandre Bertails: a third way is to have a global mode for the patch, lax or strict ←
15:32:52 <betehess> s/glogale/global/
Alexandre Bertails: s/glogale/global/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
15:33:25 <SteveS> having a global mode and then perhaps per operation to override/guarantee something, like Delete(mode=[lax | strict])
Steve Speicher: having a global mode and then perhaps per operation to override/guarantee something, like Delete(mode=[lax | strict]) ←
15:35:37 <pchampin> pchampin: assertions gives more flexibility, but may force you to be more verbose
Pierre-Antoine Champin: assertions gives more flexibility, but may force you to be more verbose ←
15:37:00 <pchampin> sandro: I have no strong opinion on etags / strict mode / assertions
Sandro Hawke: I have no strong opinion on etags / strict mode / assertions ←
15:37:14 <betehess> so far: a) assertions b) mode strict/lax c) 2 sets of operations d) etags + delete doesn't fail
Alexandre Bertails: so far: a) assertions b) mode strict/lax c) 2 sets of operations d) etags + delete doesn't fail ←
15:37:36 <pchampin> ... what should you do in strict mode ? completely rollback if one operation fails?
... what should you do in strict mode ? completely rollback if one operation fails? ←
15:37:53 <Ashok> yes
Ashok Malhotra: yes ←
15:37:54 <pchampin> steves: yes, that's the semantics of the PATCH verb
Steve Speicher: yes, that's the semantics of the PATCH verb ←
15:38:04 <pchampin> sandro: that's a heavy burden
Sandro Hawke: that's a heavy burden ←
15:38:50 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:38:50 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:40:26 <pchampin> pchampin: we could constrain assertions to be in the preamble, before any operation
Pierre-Antoine Champin: we could constrain assertions to be in the preamble, before any operation ←
15:40:28 <betehess> I don't understand the database argument
Alexandre Bertails: I don't understand the database argument ←
15:40:31 <ericP> why wouldn't it be an issue?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: why wouldn't it be an issue? ←
15:40:45 <pchampin> tallted: we are again down the path of reinventing database
Ted Thibodeau: we are again down the path of reinventing database ←
15:40:47 <Ashok> You would have transactions
Ashok Malhotra: You would have transactions ←
15:40:55 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
15:40:58 <ericP> just because the database can support the desired behavior doesn't mean we have language to signal the desired behavior
Eric Prud'hommeaux: just because the database can support the desired behavior doesn't mean we have language to signal the desired behavior ←
15:41:11 <betehess> I don't understand how transactions are relevant here, we are only updating one resource, not several at once
Alexandre Bertails: I don't understand how transactions are relevant here, we are only updating one resource, not several at once ←
15:43:29 <Zakim> +bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: +bblfish ←
15:43:39 <TallTed> no argument, ericP -- I'd be happy to have the language for signaling this... but that implies a larger burden on servers to support handling those signals, and on clients to send them
Ted Thibodeau: no argument, ericP -- I'd be happy to have the language for signaling this... but that implies a larger burden on servers to support handling those signals, and on clients to send them ←
15:43:46 <betehess> q+
Alexandre Bertails: q+ ←
15:43:56 <Arnaud> ack betehess
Arnaud Le Hors: ack betehess ←
15:44:08 <pchampin> sandro: why not just rely on etags now, and add another feature in a further version?
Sandro Hawke: why not just rely on etags now, and add another feature in a further version? ←
15:44:42 <pchampin> betehess: we still have to decide on the default behaviour, which will have to be conservative in further versions
Alexandre Bertails: we still have to decide on the default behaviour, which will have to be conservative in further versions ←
15:45:06 <pchampin> arnaud: sandro's point is that the default would be Delete fails silently
Arnaud Le Hors: sandro's point is that the default would be Delete fails silently ←
15:45:16 <pchampin> ... this minimal option is appealing
... this minimal option is appealing ←
15:45:40 <Arnaud> STRAWPOLL: a) assertions b) mode strict/lax c) 2 sets of operations d) etags + delete doesn't fail
STRAWPOLL: a) assertions b) mode strict/lax c) 2 sets of operations d) etags + delete doesn't fail ←
15:45:55 <pchampin> q+
q+ ←
15:45:58 <SteveS> 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.0
Steve Speicher: 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.0 ←
15:46:03 <Arnaud> ack pchampin
Arnaud Le Hors: ack pchampin ←
15:46:29 <betehess> -0 +1 +0.5 +0.5
Alexandre Bertails: -0 +1 +0.5 +0.5 ←
15:47:00 <deiu> 0 +1 0 +1
Andrei Sambra: 0 +1 0 +1 ←
15:47:12 <Ashok> b or c
Ashok Malhotra: b or c ←
15:47:59 <pchampin> 1/3 1/3 0 1/3
1/3 1/3 0 1/3 ←
15:48:04 <TallTed> true neutral, at this point...
Ted Thibodeau: true neutral, at this point... ←
15:48:06 <codyburleson> a) 0 b) 0 c) 0 d) +0.5
Cody Burleson: a) 0 b) 0 c) 0 d) +0.5 ←
15:49:25 <pchampin> tallted: 2 sets of operations can be useful to chose the operations only *when* you want to be sure
Ted Thibodeau: 2 sets of operations can be useful to chose the operations only *when* you want to be sure ←
15:49:51 <pchampin> pchampin: @tallted yes I can't see why you would care only on a part of the patch
Pierre-Antoine Champin: @tallted yes I can't see why you would care only on a part of the patch ←
15:51:09 <pchampin> arnaud: we are running out of time; let people think about it until next week
Arnaud Le Hors: we are running out of time; let people think about it until next week ←
15:51:46 <betehess> also, timbl brought up an issue on the error status code... but he didn't send that on the public mailing list (did he?)
Alexandre Bertails: also, timbl brought up an issue on the error status code... but he didn't send that on the public mailing list (did he?) ←
15:51:39 <pchampin> topic: Working Group rechartering
<pchampin> arnaud: asked W3M for guidance
Arnaud Le Hors: asked W3M for guidance ←
15:52:57 <pchampin> arnaud: we explained that we have work in progress ; mentionned the CSS WG as an example
Arnaud Le Hors: we explained that we have work in progress ; mentionned the CSS WG as an example ←
15:53:18 <pchampin> ... but it does not seem to be an example to follow
... but it does not seem to be an example to follow ←
15:53:34 <pchampin> ... the easiest would be to ask for an extension
... the easiest would be to ask for an extension ←
15:54:31 <pchampin> ... and we already have some positive feedback from W3M
... and we already have some positive feedback from W3M ←
15:55:02 <betehess> can't we ask like 3 months at a time? could avoid asking for too much
Alexandre Bertails: can't we ask like 3 months at a time? could avoid asking for too much ←
15:55:10 <pchampin> sandro: IMO we could ask 6m or 1y
Sandro Hawke: IMO we could ask 6m or 1y ←
15:56:37 <pchampin> arnaud: @betehess, it is not really good to keep asking for an extension
Arnaud Le Hors: @betehess, it is not really good to keep asking for an extension ←
15:56:50 <pchampin> ... better to ask once, and when we are ready propose a new charter
... better to ask once, and when we are ready propose a new charter ←
15:57:31 <pchampin> ashok: we can ask for 12m, and tell if we are done earlier
Ashok Malhotra: we can ask for 12m, and tell if we are done earlier ←
15:57:43 <pchampin> arnaud: do people think that 6m would be enough?
Arnaud Le Hors: do people think that 6m would be enough? ←
15:57:48 <ericP> i'm with Sandro on this; go for a year
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'm with Sandro on this; go for a year ←
15:57:55 <betehess> in my case, 6 months is enough to do more than playing, including LD Patch
Alexandre Bertails: in my case, 6 months is enough to do more than playing, including LD Patch ←
15:57:58 <SteveS> seems a little short to me, I would think end of summer 2015
Steve Speicher: seems a little short to me, I would think end of summer 2015 ←
15:58:21 <betehess> and I like having shorter deadlines, eg. 6 months, because you try harder to deliver things
Alexandre Bertails: and I like having shorter deadlines, eg. 6 months, because you try harder to deliver things ←
15:58:40 <bblfish> I am happy with 6 months, but you may as well get more if you can.
Henry Story: I am happy with 6 months, but you may as well get more if you can. ←
15:58:53 <pchampin> sandro: we can argue that we need less resources during the extension
Sandro Hawke: we can argue that we need less resources during the extension ←
15:58:55 <SteveS> I agree to try to achieve before, so 6 would be a good forcing timeframe
Steve Speicher: I agree to try to achieve before, so 6 would be a good forcing timeframe ←
15:59:06 <pchampin> arnaud: we could indeed reduce the frequency of calls
Arnaud Le Hors: we could indeed reduce the frequency of calls ←
15:59:42 <betehess> 6 months to deliver, 3 months to wrap things up :-)
Alexandre Bertails: 6 months to deliver, 3 months to wrap things up :-) ←
16:00:50 <betehess> thanks
Alexandre Bertails: thanks ←
16:00:51 <Zakim> -bblfish
Zakim IRC Bot: -bblfish ←
16:00:53 <bblfish> thanks
Henry Story: thanks ←
16:00:56 <Zakim> -deiu
Zakim IRC Bot: -deiu ←
16:00:57 <Zakim> -Alexandre
Zakim IRC Bot: -Alexandre ←
16:00:57 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:00:59 <Zakim> -SteveS
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveS ←
16:00:59 <Zakim> -codyburleson
Zakim IRC Bot: -codyburleson ←
16:01:00 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:01:00 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:01:02 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:01:03 <bblfish> sorry bad connection here
Henry Story: sorry bad connection here ←
16:01:07 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ashok_Malhotra ←
16:04:43 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
16:35:01 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_LDP()10:00AM
(No events recorded for 33 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_LDP()10:00AM ←
16:35:02 <Zakim> SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_LDP()10:00AM has ended ←
16:35:02 <Zakim> Attendees were Arnaud, bblfish, deiu, TallTed, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, pchampin, codyburleson, Alexandre, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Arnaud, bblfish, deiu, TallTed, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, pchampin, codyburleson, Alexandre, ericP ←
<pchampin> Present: Arnaud, bblfish, deiu, TallTed, Sandro, Ashok_Malhotra, SteveS, pchampin, codyburleson, Alexandre, ericP
Formatted by CommonScribe