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+ LéonieWatson(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