IRC log of webizen on 2014-08-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:28:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webizen
13:28:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/08/20-webizen-irc
13:28:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webizen
13:28:31 [koalie]
RRSAgent, make logs public
13:32:01 [koalie]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webizen/2014Aug/0040.html
13:32:34 [koalie]
-> http://www.w3.org/2014/08/01-webizen-minutes.html Previous (2014-08-20)
13:32:48 [koalie]
meeting: Webizen Task Force teleconference
13:32:52 [koalie]
chair: JeffJaffe
13:36:00 [koalie]
agenda+ Run through the wiki to make sure we are aligned on our proposal
13:36:07 [koalie]
agenda+ Discussion of marketing survey
13:36:32 [koalie]
Discussion of email thread about "representation" including how to represent this thread in the survey
13:36:40 [koalie]
agenda+ Discussion of email thread about "representation" including how to represent this thread in the survey
13:40:01 [koalie]
regrets: ChristopheGuéret, VirginieGalindo, VagnerDiniz
13:47:51 [koalie]
Zakim, this will be webiz
13:47:51 [Zakim]
ok, koalie; I see Team_JEFF(WEBIZ)10:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
13:56:27 [ahaller2]
ahaller2 has joined #webizen
13:57:15 [veronica]
veronica has joined #webizen
13:57:20 [koalie]
scribenick: koalie
13:59:20 [Zakim]
Team_JEFF(WEBIZ)10:00AM has now started
13:59:27 [Zakim]
+ +49.302.389.5.aaaa
14:00:01 [Zakim]
+ +61.4.331.2.aabb
14:00:03 [Julian_]
Julian_ has joined #webizen
14:00:05 [Georg]
Georg has joined #webizen
14:00:12 [Zakim]
+koalie
14:00:14 [jeff]
jeff has joined #webizen
14:00:34 [koalie]
Zakim, aaaa is GeorgRehm
14:00:34 [Zakim]
+GeorgRehm; got it
14:00:52 [ahaller2]
zakim, +61.4.331 is ahaller2
14:00:52 [Zakim]
+ahaller2; got it
14:01:02 [Zakim]
+??P7
14:01:05 [Zakim]
+BrianKardell
14:01:09 [Zakim]
+Jeff
14:01:19 [veronica]
zakim, code?
14:01:19 [Zakim]
the conference code is 93249 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), veronica
14:01:26 [koalie]
Zakim, nick ahaller2 is ArminHaller
14:01:26 [Zakim]
sorry, koalie, I do not see a party named 'ArminHaller'
14:01:39 [Zakim]
+ +44.778.839.aacc
14:01:48 [koalie]
Zakim, associate nick ahaller2 with ArminHaller
14:01:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, koalie
14:02:00 [olleo]
olleo has joined #webizen
14:02:07 [Zakim]
+Veronica
14:02:08 [Zakim]
+??P14
14:02:15 [jeff]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen
14:02:22 [koalie]
Zakim, ??P14 is michiell
14:02:22 [Zakim]
+michiell; got it
14:02:33 [koalie]
Zakim, aacc is Julian
14:02:33 [Zakim]
+Julian; got it
14:02:40 [michiell]
Hi all
14:02:44 [MarkCrawford]
MarkCrawford has joined #Webizen
14:03:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.670.aadd
14:03:30 [koalie]
Zakim, aadd is MarkCrawford
14:03:30 [Zakim]
+MarkCrawford; got it
14:03:33 [michiell]
BTW: I'm using the SIP bridge succesfully
14:03:59 [koalie]
Zakim, agenda?
14:03:59 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
14:04:00 [Zakim]
1. Run through the wiki to make sure we are aligned on our proposal [from koalie]
14:04:00 [Zakim]
2. Discussion of marketing survey [from koalie]
14:04:00 [Zakim]
3. Discussion of email thread about "representation" including how to represent this thread in the survey [from koalie]
14:04:10 [LJWatson]
LJWatson has joined #webizen
14:04:51 [koalie]
[Jeff Jaffe goes over agenda]
14:05:23 [koalie]
Jeff: I'd like to exit today's meeting with a consensus on how we might include the representation to the survey
14:05:52 [koalie]
... Mark pointed out that the marketing survey questions should be submitted to our Advisory Committee as well as twitter followers
14:05:56 [koalie]
Zakim, take up item 1
14:05:56 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Run through the wiki to make sure we are aligned on our proposal" taken up [from koalie]
14:06:11 [koalie]
Jeff: Last time we talked about the mission and success criteria
14:06:17 [koalie]
... let's start with goals
14:06:25 [koalie]
-> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Goals Goals of program
14:06:33 [koalie]
Jeff: Any modification?
14:07:14 [koalie]
Jeff: seeing no queue, I'll assume those are agreed for now
14:08:13 [koalie]
[dial 41# to raise hand]
14:08:24 [koalie]
[dial 42# to lower hand]
14:08:45 [koalie]
-> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Mission Missions of the program
14:08:52 [koalie]
Jeff: no comment on missions?
14:09:04 [koalie]
-> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Success_criteria
14:09:05 [olleo]
q+
14:09:19 [koalie]
Jeff: Any suggestion on deleting, adding success criteria?
14:09:37 [koalie]
Olle: Success criteria should go back to goals
14:09:41 [koalie]
... and bring value to W3C
14:09:53 [AnnBassetti]
AnnBassetti has joined #webizen
14:10:14 [koalie]
... increase review, spec writers, if we don't reach those goals, I don't see a value in the program
14:10:49 [koalie]
Zakim, ??P7 is OlleOlsson
14:10:49 [Zakim]
+OlleOlsson; got it
14:10:53 [Zakim]
+Ann
14:10:56 [michiell]
Q+
14:10:59 [koalie]
Jeff: Feel free to edit the wiki
14:11:02 [koalie]
ack m
14:11:07 [koalie]
q- o
14:11:41 [koalie]
Michiell: based on experience with frontend dev, there's a certain disappointment with spec development
14:11:46 [koalie]
... they love the Web but not the W3C
14:11:56 [koalie]
... it's weird but it's tangibly out there when I organise events
14:12:37 [koalie]
... get the foot folks of the industry who are apparently in love with browsers but not W3C anymore; there's a love/hate relationship, to change the idea the people have of W3c would be a goal for me as well
14:12:51 [koalie]
Jeff: Excellent idea. I believe it was always intended.
14:13:31 [koalie]
... the language we use in the wiki --attract stakeholders, etc, there's nothing wrong with adding "build appreciation"
14:13:39 [koalie]
... feel free to add the bullet to the wiki
14:14:07 [koalie]
... if you don't do it, I'll take care of it in the next few days
14:14:09 [koalie]
ack b
14:14:26 [koalie]
Brian: Careful with the language
14:14:34 [koalie]
... don't sound too bureaucratic
14:14:36 [Zakim]
-BrianKardell
14:14:51 [jeff]
q?
14:14:58 [Zakim]
+BrianKardell
14:15:20 [koalie]
Zakim, close this item
14:15:20 [Zakim]
agendum 1 closed
14:15:21 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
14:15:21 [Zakim]
2. Discussion of marketing survey [from koalie]
14:15:23 [koalie]
Zakim, next item
14:15:23 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Discussion of marketing survey" taken up [from koalie]
14:15:42 [michiell]
Q+
14:16:16 [koalie]
-> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webizen#Target_market_and_marketing_study Target market and marketing study
14:16:24 [koalie]
ack m
14:16:49 [koalie]
Michiell: Not being a Twitter user, huge bias in asking this huge echo chamber, other channel active as well?
14:17:01 [koalie]
... do you need to be on Twitter to answer?
14:17:11 [koalie]
... many of the people I represent don't have twitter accounts
14:17:15 [Zakim]
-BrianKardell
14:17:31 [Zakim]
+BrianKardell
14:18:10 [Julian_]
q+
14:18:14 [Zakim]
-BrianKardell
14:18:19 [ahaller2]
q+
14:18:34 [koalie]
[Jeff gives info on context]
14:18:54 [koalie]
Jeff: We're open to different approaches
14:19:11 [koalie]
Michiell: ISOC people care about the net but I guess the Web also
14:19:16 [koalie]
... it's beyond the IETF community
14:19:22 [koalie]
... ISOC has communication channels
14:19:28 [koalie]
... like mailing lists and newsletter
14:19:30 [AnnBassetti]
q+
14:19:43 [koalie]
... I'm willing to connect you with the Chief Internet Technology Officer
14:20:14 [koalie]
... There are some points where ISOC IETF and Webizen intersect
14:20:29 [koalie]
Jeff: At the moment, I'm not thinking to reach out to the internet society
14:20:47 [koalie]
... I've reached out to them over the years, sometimes successfully, other times less so
14:20:50 [koalie]
ack J
14:21:14 [koalie]
Julian: @@ quite happy to put out a questionnaire and do analysis; is that still wanted?
14:21:30 [koalie]
jeff: is that the org we spoke to a few weeks ago?
14:21:31 [Zakim]
+BrianKardell
14:21:34 [koalie]
Julian: Yes
14:21:50 [koalie]
Jeff: I don't recall they provided input; they're happy to review it but they didn't do anything
14:21:50 [michiell]
Jeff: there is a new CEO and new CTO @ Internet Society, and I think there is opportunity to strenghten contacts
14:21:55 [koalie]
... are they waiting for me?
14:22:04 [koalie]
... it was a good suggestion, and we did speak to them
14:22:21 [koalie]
Julian: I'll go back to Ricomm? and I'll get back to you
14:22:29 [koalie]
Jeff: I appreciate this
14:22:31 [koalie]
ack ar
14:22:34 [koalie]
ack ah
14:22:43 [Julian_]
q+
14:22:46 [AnnBassetti]
q-
14:23:10 [koalie]
Armin: I'm missing bit on the pricing model, question 2 particularly is missing "how much are you willing to pay for" e.g. e-mail address etc.
14:23:22 [koalie]
... What you get for what it costs is missing
14:23:34 [koalie]
Jeff: There are a couple ways for doing it
14:23:40 [koalie]
... I'm open to different input
14:23:49 [koalie]
... on the last call, we said you have to start somewhere
14:23:56 [AnnBassetti]
the influence of ISOC may vary by country or locale ... my impression, in the USA, Seattle area, is there is little or no awareness or participation in ISOC
14:23:59 [koalie]
... if you ask people what they want to pay, people will generally want to pay less
14:24:20 [koalie]
... we came up with USD 100 to cover expenses, so in the survey we tell that what it costs, and would you join for that
14:24:27 [michiell]
Ask the money question at the end
14:24:27 [koalie]
... is there a better different way to ask?
14:24:54 [koalie]
Armin: Of course, we could say that @@in each country. Another is to name benefits with costs and ask
14:25:06 [koalie]
... what would you be willing to pay for which?
14:25:16 [koalie]
Jeff: what are you suggesting? different programs?
14:25:42 [koalie]
Armin: name services and values
14:25:50 [koalie]
... e.g. USD 20 for an e-mail address
14:26:03 [michiell]
I would suggest to use a 'card sorting' mechanism
14:26:19 [koalie]
Jeff: Well, we do that. there's a prologue which describes the service, and a question that asks whether people would sign up
14:26:22 [AnnBassetti]
or maybe there needs to be an explicit question about cost?
14:26:24 [michiell]
This makes people put their favorite features on top
14:26:27 [koalie]
... does the prologue need to be closer to question 2?
14:26:41 [koalie]
Armin: [something about would you join a freemium model]
14:26:53 [koalie]
Jeff: We would be losing money if this were free
14:27:03 [michiell]
That gives a qualitative indication as well as an overall preference
14:27:21 [koalie]
... The free model would get a lot more support probably, but that's not consistent with what other people have said: we can't lose money on this.
14:27:24 [koalie]
ack j
14:27:47 [koalie]
Julian: In terms of survey content, Ricom? has said we need to test what we're going to offer, and not just t-shirts
14:28:04 [koalie]
... what needs to be in this is the mission, what people want to see, what they are buying, their reward for signing up
14:28:33 [koalie]
... if you're in agreement, what I can do is get back to Ricom? and see what feedback I get
14:28:50 [koalie]
Jeff: isn't that what question 7 do?
14:28:57 [koalie]
s/do?/does?/
14:29:21 [koalie]
... if there's a better way to say it, sure
14:29:23 [koalie]
ack b
14:29:54 [koalie]
Zakim, close this item
14:29:54 [Zakim]
agendum 2 closed
14:29:55 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
14:29:55 [Zakim]
3. Discussion of email thread about "representation" including how to represent this thread in the survey [from koalie]
14:29:58 [koalie]
Zakim, next item
14:29:58 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Discussion of email thread about "representation" including how to represent this thread in the survey" taken up [from koalie]
14:30:07 [koalie]
Jeff: the survey came out of the last meeting
14:30:15 [koalie]
... since then, there was a lot of input about representation
14:30:15 [michiell]
Q1 should actually be the last question, I think
14:30:21 [koalie]
... it's sensible to put questions related to that
14:30:39 [koalie]
... but there were so many different points of view that I don't know the right way to ask
14:31:01 [koalie]
Brian: what I was proposing in e-mail is what developers want: participate as a first class citizen in the W3C
14:31:20 [koalie]
... we have various open source orgs etc, but to put together an org is non-trivial
14:31:34 [koalie]
... W3C has been helpful creating community groups
14:31:45 [koalie]
... how to avoid legal loopholes to create an org?
14:32:07 [koalie]
... if you can do that you'll get a hundred, a thousand developers
14:32:16 [michiell]
+1
14:32:25 [jeff]
q+
14:32:34 [jeff]
ack je
14:32:40 [jeff]
q+
14:32:46 [koalie]
... provide a nice way for developers to be first-class citizen in the W3C
14:33:09 [koalie]
Brian: we can create a github org or something else
14:33:11 [jeff]
ack je
14:33:28 [koalie]
Jeff: At one level, and chaals said it, anybody can create an org
14:33:43 [koalie]
... but for W3c to create such an org, that's one of the things we're not really good at
14:33:50 [koalie]
... W3C itself is not an org
14:33:54 [koalie]
... we're not a legal entity
14:34:10 [koalie]
[W3C is hosted by legal entities]
14:34:22 [koalie]
Brian: is that necessary to be a legal entity to participate in W3C?
14:34:30 [koalie]
Jeff: Yes and no.
14:34:42 [koalie]
... we have ways for individuals to participate in W3C as individuals
14:34:53 [koalie]
... we have hundreds of invited experts in our working group
14:35:01 [koalie]
Brian: They have no representation
14:35:15 [koalie]
... they don't have a say in the advisory committee
14:36:06 [koalie]
Jeff: It would be a quite astonishing change in the structure of the W3C to have folks on the advisory committee who are individuals
14:36:10 [koalie]
... I guess it could be done
14:36:28 [koalie]
... one way to do it is you can have every webizen be a member of the AC but that wouldn't scale very well
14:36:32 [koalie]
Brian: I agree
14:36:36 [jeff]
zakim, who is making noise
14:36:36 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is making noise', jeff
14:36:42 [jeff]
zakim, who is making noise?
14:36:47 [koalie]
[musical interlude]
14:36:53 [Zakim]
jeff, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jeff (86%)
14:37:03 [koalie]
Jeff: another way to do it is to have the webizens electoral college
14:37:28 [koalie]
... that was a proposal I had brought forward to the June Advisory committee meeting and that got substantial push-back
14:37:35 [koalie]
... do you have any other mechanism in mind?
14:38:17 [koalie]
Brian: You create a github org, put your license, state what your operations are. I'm proposing little change, really.
14:38:24 [ahaller2]
+1 for electoral college
14:38:40 [koalie]
Jeff: here's a possible interpretation
14:39:17 [koalie]
... if every webizen went to this so-called org, and it had a voice on the AC, it's the same proposal as the college, except it's weaker
14:39:46 [MarkCrawford]
lessend concerns
14:39:50 [koalie]
... if we have a single AC rep, I'm curious, would that be acceptable to e.g. Mark who voiced concerned last June?
14:40:02 [koalie]
Jeff: So, that's a compromised position
14:40:17 [koalie]
Brian: You assume I'm talking about a webizen org, I'm talking of an org.
14:40:19 [michiell]
Should perhaps be possible for a community group to 'elevate' key persons without membership to AC status by means of a group donation?
14:40:38 [michiell]
Q+
14:40:50 [koalie]
... whatever it takes to join, whether that org is made of one or hundreds of developers
14:40:58 [koalie]
ack m
14:41:10 [koalie]
Michiell: My idea was that CGs are already a pretty open mechanism
14:41:20 [koalie]
... I'd see a model where people pitch in together
14:41:37 [koalie]
... that would allow more open input into the AC model
14:42:09 [koalie]
... going back to 1994, I wanted to join W3C, I was just a student. I got frightened and joined 5 years later.
14:42:26 [koalie]
... looking from the outside, it was an ivory tower I didn't have 50K$ to join
14:42:47 [koalie]
... the CGs mechanism is attractive
14:42:56 [koalie]
... it works to get people together
14:43:09 [koalie]
Jeff: Linkage between CGs and AC?
14:43:34 [ahaller2]
q+
14:43:58 [koalie]
Michiell: Michiel de Jung is currently in a CG. if you could elevate a CG to get an AC rep of the CG, my guess is it would be far better to get individuals there and be represented
14:44:05 [koalie]
... a tiered system
14:44:16 [koalie]
... where people affiliated around a subject get to have a voice
14:44:24 [koalie]
Jeff: Each CG gets an AC rep?
14:44:42 [koalie]
Michiell: Not all. Get a payment slot available for a given CG to send a person to the AC
14:45:10 [koalie]
Jeff: Do we know of any CG that would be interested in doing that?
14:45:25 [koalie]
Michiell: I don't have a list of them, but my guess is that any interest is topic-based
14:45:50 [koalie]
Jeff: I'd be interested in understanding some practical use-cases
14:46:10 [koalie]
... We have an open-annotation CG that's been active for quite some time
14:46:23 [koalie]
... the Team said, gee, we're ready to launch a Working Group
14:46:40 [koalie]
... from then on, hypothesis became a startup member for 2 years
14:47:05 [koalie]
... your particular exmple of CGs funding involvement, I haven't seen any example of this
14:47:13 [koalie]
s/xmple/xample/
14:47:31 [koalie]
Michiell: it's a mechanisms to elevate the group to a certain status that gives them a voice
14:47:47 [koalie]
ack ah
14:48:20 [koalie]
Armin: Another approach would be to link the cost: for every webizen, we get x representatives
14:48:32 [koalie]
Jeff: That was the electoral college proposal last June
14:48:45 [koalie]
... a rep for every 200 webize
14:48:48 [koalie]
... that got shot down
14:48:51 [michiell]
The startup fee would mean 20 webizens per vote
14:48:59 [koalie]
s/link the/link to the membership/
14:49:05 [koalie]
s/bize/bizen/
14:49:17 [koalie]
Jeff: 200 was in between full member and affiiate fee
14:49:18 [MarkCrawford]
q+
14:50:10 [koalie]
ack b
14:50:24 [koalie]
Brian: What michiell proposed is close to what I'm talking about
14:50:50 [koalie]
... people are free to establish a group, pretty much like a CG, perhaps with founding documents of how they operate,
14:51:04 [koalie]
... we don't care how they get funding (paypal etc.)
14:51:10 [koalie]
... we don't care how many members
14:51:49 [koalie]
... all I care about is removing the legal hurdle
14:51:59 [Zakim]
-Julian
14:52:02 [koalie]
...
14:52:22 [koalie]
... the join fees remains the same
14:52:35 [koalie]
Jeff: How is that different from my proposal in June,
14:52:58 [koalie]
... which the AC shot down
14:53:00 [michiell]
Jeff: the difference is I guess that it is not a quorum but a group
14:53:16 [koalie]
Brian: What I saw in June was fairly complex
14:53:24 [AnnBassetti]
I believe the AC shot it down, for fear that companies would quit their regular memberships and buy back in as "webizens"
14:53:38 [AnnBassetti]
IOW ... for much less money
14:53:41 [olleo]
Comment: getting "webizens" to create a legal org raises some challenes, e.g. in what jurisdiction is it established?
14:53:52 [koalie]
Brian: you can't shot down someone who can pay the price to join as a member
14:54:00 [koalie]
s/can't shot/can't shoot/
14:54:10 [ahaller2]
+1 AnnBassetti, I also got the feeling that this was the concern
14:54:24 [jeff]
q?
14:54:25 [olleo]
Comment: So a way to view Brians proposal is that W3C provides a framework for a kind of "virtual orgs".
14:54:26 [AnnBassetti]
q+
14:55:11 [koalie]
ack m
14:55:32 [koalie]
Mark:
14:56:15 [koalie]
Mark: my concern would be to have a certain level of assurance of IP made by legal entities which can be made accountable in court
14:56:31 [michiell]
comment: we have the same situation for invited experts
14:56:34 [koalie]
... we would not have the same situation if we had a legal entity, or even individuals signign IP policy individually
14:56:40 [koalie]
... we don't have the same level or recourse
14:57:02 [koalie]
... to the point I wanted to make, having heard the dialogue, what it is we want for these webizens?
14:57:12 [AnnBassetti]
q-
14:57:25 [koalie]
... are we interested in getting their technical input? or governance input?
14:57:46 [koalie]
... are the goals listed sufficiently descriptive?
14:58:05 [koalie]
... it would be much more important to get input for spec content and not so much at the AC level or AB level
14:58:24 [koalie]
... I looked at a different org, OASIS, which has both corporate and individual memberships
14:58:46 [koalie]
... corporate has voting rights, a say in the running of the org
14:58:52 [koalie]
... individuals don't
14:59:14 [koalie]
Jeff: At least for me, the things that aren't clear to you are clear to me, here's how the fine line is
14:59:27 [koalie]
... The most important thing that comes out of W3C is specifications
14:59:32 [koalie]
... they affect lots of people
14:59:53 [koalie]
... we thinkg it's important to grow this set of people who develop specs, provide requirements, etc.
14:59:56 [koalie]
... it's the general public
15:00:17 [koalie]
... it's our vuew point that we lack view point from developers
15:00:20 [koalie]
... by creating this community, we aspire to increase the level of participation and affiliation
15:00:25 [koalie]
s/vue/vie/
15:00:47 [michiell]
comment: if people don't like the governance, they won't contribute the technical input
15:00:58 [koalie]
Jeff: in the W3C means of getting work done, there is a difference between getting requirements and getting the technical input to address those requirements
15:01:16 [koalie]
... this is what the working groups do
15:01:52 [koalie]
... we already have an effective mechanism to get this technical input from non-members: invited experts
15:02:13 [jeff]
q?
15:02:33 [koalie]
Mark: that's your position, I don't hear that from several other members of the group
15:02:52 [koalie]
... you carefully distinguish AC charter review and other AC tasks
15:03:10 [koalie]
Jeff: One of the rights and privileges of AC reps is that they can name people from their orgs to be in working groups
15:03:48 [koalie]
... we have an IPR lack of clarity if a webizen can be an invited expert in any group
15:04:14 [koalie]
Mark: why don't leave the AC out of @@@if this is the issue?
15:04:39 [koalie]
Jeff: That's what I was proposing initially with upper house and lower house
15:04:51 [koalie]
ack b
15:05:24 [koalie]
Brian: on the legal aspect, currently a lot happens in public mailing lists
15:05:31 [AnnBassetti]
I think I like the bicameral possibility of structure (upper / lower houses)
15:05:40 [koalie]
... some even avoid W3C discussion and bring back stuff later to W3C
15:05:53 [MarkCrawford]
Unfortunately I need to drop
15:05:57 [Zakim]
-MarkCrawford
15:06:19 [koalie]
Brian: how can we currently have individuals@@@[missed]
15:06:26 [koalie]
... Where is the legal argument?
15:06:39 [koalie]
... IEs are individuals but they don't represent anybody
15:06:52 [koalie]
Jeff: You're right that there aren't a lot of fine lines
15:07:02 [koalie]
... each thing that we introduce we introduce with a lot of care
15:07:18 [koalie]
... in case of IEs which is one of the things you mention, they make IPR commitments
15:07:25 [koalie]
... in cases this is more restrictive than Members
15:07:41 [koalie]
... furthermore, IEs are only invited if invited by the chair of the working group
15:08:21 [koalie]
... with a new program such as the webizen program, we're in the same situation
15:08:34 [koalie]
... we need to be careful when we figure out legal protection of the Web
15:09:02 [koalie]
Jeff: I'll take an action, based on this call, to propose further questions to the survey
15:09:10 [koalie]
... but we don't have a clear consensus
15:09:33 [koalie]
... we don't need to have consensus for the rest of the survey, but it's important to have an understanding of what each proposal is
15:09:41 [koalie]
... and to consider what has been shot down before
15:09:46 [koalie]
... I'll put my ideas on the list or wiki
15:10:22 [koalie]
... and invite others to contribute to phrasing
15:10:38 [koalie]
I... I'd like to get the survey out by September
15:10:40 [koalie]
... we need another meeting
15:10:51 [koalie]
... I'll send around a doodle poll for the week of September 1
15:10:56 [koalie]
s/I.../.../
15:11:05 [jeff]
q?
15:11:15 [koalie]
Jeff: Anything else?
15:11:29 [michiell]
Thanks, all.
15:11:38 [veronica]
thanks
15:11:39 [Zakim]
-Ann
15:11:40 [Zakim]
-BrianKardell
15:11:41 [Zakim]
-Jeff
15:11:41 [olleo]
olleo has left #webizen
15:11:43 [Zakim]
-GeorgRehm
15:11:43 [Zakim]
-Veronica
15:11:44 [Zakim]
-ahaller2
15:11:45 [koalie]
Zakim, list attendees
15:11:45 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been +49.302.389.5.aaaa, +61.4.331.2.aabb, koalie, GeorgRehm, ahaller2, BrianKardell, Jeff, +44.778.839.aacc, Veronica, michiell, Julian,
15:11:48 [Zakim]
... +1.703.670.aadd, MarkCrawford, OlleOlsson, Ann
15:11:50 [Zakim]
-koalie
15:11:54 [Zakim]
-michiell
15:12:21 [koalie]
RRSagent, make minutes
15:12:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/08/20-webizen-minutes.html koalie
15:16:55 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, OlleOlsson, in Team_JEFF(WEBIZ)10:00AM
15:16:57 [Zakim]
Team_JEFF(WEBIZ)10:00AM has ended
15:16:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were +49.302.389.5.aaaa, +61.4.331.2.aabb, koalie, GeorgRehm, ahaller2, BrianKardell, Jeff, +44.778.839.aacc, Veronica, michiell, Julian, +1.703.670.aadd, MarkCrawford,
15:16:57 [Zakim]
... OlleOlsson, Ann
15:17:14 [veronica]
veronica has left #webizen
15:17:53 [koalie]
s/<koalie> ->/<koaliie> ->/G
15:17:55 [koalie]
RRSagent, make minutes
15:17:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/08/20-webizen-minutes.html koalie
15:22:08 [koalie]
regrets+ LĂ©onieWatson(IRConly)
15:22:13 [koalie]
RRSagent, make minutes
15:22:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/08/20-webizen-minutes.html koalie
15:22:32 [koalie]
RRSAgent, bye
15:22:32 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items