IRC log of dpub on 2017-02-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:32:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dpub
16:32:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:32:14 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:32:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dpub
16:32:16 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be dpub
16:32:16 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
16:32:17 [trackbot]
Meeting: Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference
16:32:17 [trackbot]
Date: 06 February 2017
16:33:21 [ivan]
16:33:35 [ivan]
Agenda call 2017-02-06:
16:33:41 [ivan]
Chair: Garth
16:34:17 [ivan]
Regrets: Luc, Romain, Laurent, Heather, Peter, Alan, Rick
16:49:03 [garth]
garth has joined #dpub
16:49:21 [garth]
16:52:14 [BillMcCoy]
BillMcCoy has joined #DPUB
16:55:21 [dkaplan3]
dkaplan3 has joined #dpub
16:56:10 [Avneesh]
Avneesh has joined #dpub
16:56:39 [Avneesh]
present+ Avneesh
16:57:35 [dkaplan3]
present+ Deborah_Kaplan
16:57:42 [dauwhe]
present+ dauwhe
16:57:44 [garth]
Nick regretted... so looking for a scribe!
16:59:18 [ivan]
16:59:57 [hadrien]
hadrien has joined #dpub
17:00:02 [ivan]
regrets+ bert, nick
17:00:06 [dauwhe]
scribenick: dauwhe
17:00:14 [Sel]
Sel has joined #dpub
17:00:25 [hadrien]
present+ hadrien
17:00:43 [Karen]
present+ Karen
17:01:19 [dauwhe]
garth: one more minute...
17:01:22 [garth]
Bill M on the call? Muted?
17:01:36 [Bill_Kasdorf]
Bill_Kasdorf has joined #dpub
17:01:45 [Bill_Kasdorf]
present+ Bill_Kasdorf
17:02:16 [Karen]
+1 Dave Cramer
17:02:48 [clapierre1]
clapierre1 has joined #DPUB
17:02:56 [clapierre1]
17:03:05 [ivan]
present+ george
17:03:33 [BillMcCoy]
it is a snow day in Seattle too!
17:03:45 [Vlad]
Vlad has joined #dpub
17:03:54 [dauwhe]
garth: let's get started
17:04:20 [Vlad]
17:04:24 [dauwhe]
... I sent out malformed minutes, but didn't send the better ones
17:04:31 [DanielWeck]
DanielWeck has joined #dpub
17:04:37 [dauwhe]
... let me know if I missed anything
17:04:50 [dauwhe]
... are there any objections?
17:04:58 [dauwhe]
17:05:04 [dauwhe]
garth: minutes approved
17:05:32 [dauwhe]
... do we have Harriet Greene on the call? We have a new member from University of Illinois
17:05:50 [dauwhe]
... welcome in absentia :)
17:05:58 [dauwhe]
... update on merger: it's complete!
17:06:02 [ivan]
topic: idpf w3c merge
17:06:04 [dauwhe]
(general rejoicing)
17:06:10 [Karen]
17:06:25 [Vlad]
Another yeah! :)
17:06:30 [dauwhe]
... Bill McCoy is now digital publishing champion at W3C. Can you give an intro?
17:06:51 [dauwhe]
... I do want to talk about chartering
17:07:04 [dauwhe]
BillMcCoy: hello from W3C staff side
17:07:14 [dauwhe]
... I'm
17:07:27 [dauwhe]
... I expect to be a more frequent participant in this meeting
17:07:42 [dauwhe]
... I'm happy to be here. Looking forward to a working group.
17:07:51 [dauwhe]
garth: we have some tech discussions on PWP draft
17:08:09 [dauwhe]
... I'd like to move the penultimate agenda item up front
17:08:25 [dauwhe]
... can you go ahead on that?
17:08:37 [BillMcCoy]
17:08:43 [dauwhe]
... between BillM and Ivan, we can talk about the business group
17:08:49 [ivan]
topic: pub business group
17:08:53 [garth]
17:08:59 [garth]
ack Bill
17:09:12 [dauwhe]
BillMcCoy: the DPUB IG already has rough consensus on a possible direction for WG draft
17:09:21 [ivan]
17:09:31 [dauwhe]
... the most urgent thing is the broader IDPF community gets in the loop soon
17:09:39 [dauwhe]
... so we can get WG charter proposal as soon as possible
17:10:00 [dauwhe]
... so everyone should join publishing BG this week
17:10:20 [dauwhe]
... as soon as the BG is rolling, then they should have input into charter process
17:10:20 [ivan]
17:10:44 [dauwhe]
... the kickoff meeting for Publishing BG will be March 13 in London, details later this week
17:11:15 [Bill_Kasdorf]
17:11:18 [dauwhe]
... let's get a WG charter, with input from BG, as soon as possible
17:11:25 [dauwhe]
garth: that matches my 2 cents
17:11:42 [dauwhe]
... the BG kickoff before London Book Fair
17:12:02 [ivan]
17:12:02 [dauwhe]
... and then we discussed a first F2F of digital pub working group in NYC in... May
17:12:23 [dauwhe]
... but there are some issues related to the U.S. going insane politically
17:12:48 [dauwhe]
... so we're not sure if the U.S. is a feature or a bug for meetings
17:12:54 [vagner_]
vagner_ has joined #dpub
17:13:12 [dauwhe]
... if we're heading for late May/early June f2f, we need to figure that out soon
17:13:18 [dauwhe]
... we have an offer from Adobe to host in NYC
17:13:31 [dauwhe]
... and we could have our co-chair
17:13:38 [dauwhe]
... and BEA brings pub folks to town
17:13:50 [garth]
17:13:51 [dauwhe]
... we don't need to decide today
17:14:03 [garth]
ack Bill
17:14:15 [dauwhe]
Bill_Kasdorf: the relationship between this IG and the WG
17:14:24 [dauwhe]
... will this IG wind up if the WG is chartered?
17:14:45 [dauwhe]
... if so, is there anything the IG can do to help smooth the transition
17:14:53 [dauwhe]
garth: I assumed the IG would morph to the WG
17:15:10 [dauwhe]
BillMcCoy: I don't know who's decision that is
17:15:23 [dauwhe]
... bandwidth is a problem
17:15:35 [garth]
17:15:35 [dauwhe]
... and this group has acted like a WG
17:16:00 [dauwhe]
... so the default assumption is the IG would wind down, and some tasks would move to the BG or the CG
17:16:10 [dauwhe]
... but this group should discuss this
17:16:25 [dauwhe]
ivan: BillK, this is undecided
17:16:34 [dauwhe]
... We haven't discussed too much
17:16:45 [dauwhe]
... are there things that the interest group can do?
17:16:58 [dauwhe]
... the last six-seven months, the IG was preparing for the WG
17:17:11 [dauwhe]
... there are some pending issues around CSS, a11y, etc
17:17:26 [dauwhe]
... which of these should go to the WG, or should they stay separate?
17:17:30 [dauwhe]
... I don't have the answer
17:17:30 [garth]
17:17:41 [garth]
ack ivan
17:17:58 [dauwhe]
... if we think there's a need for an IG to stay, then we need to ask ourselves if it's realistic
17:18:12 [dauwhe]
... the community of tech people in publishing is not overly big
17:18:33 [brady_duga]
brady_duga has joined #dpub
17:18:34 [dauwhe]
... we'll have the BG, the WG, some of us may be involved in epub3 maintenance in the CG
17:18:41 [dauwhe]
... we'll have to have chairs, staff people, etc.
17:18:44 [brady_duga]
present+ duga
17:19:02 [dauwhe]
... one possibility is that the IG dissolves, and people join the WG
17:19:18 [garth]
17:19:26 [dauwhe]
Bill_Kasdorf: this has a big bearing on the scope of the WG charter
17:19:36 [dauwhe]
... if the IG exists, the WG charter can be narrower
17:19:44 [vagner_]
present+ Vagner
17:19:45 [dauwhe]
... if the IG goes away, WG will need broader charter
17:20:06 [dauwhe]
ivan: what was put into the draft charter are those items that are clearly rec-track work
17:20:17 [dauwhe]
... I did not consider other things
17:20:37 [garth]
17:20:40 [dauwhe]
... one thing from today's agenda is something from the mailing list
17:20:58 [dauwhe]
... to see exactly what our role be in the continuation of WCAG etc
17:21:11 [dauwhe]
... there's also the CSS-related work
17:22:05 [dauwhe]
... whether that needs to be in the IG, or that can just be in csswg
17:22:17 [dauwhe]
garth: wind-down can be independent of wind-up of WG
17:22:36 [dauwhe]
ivan: aria is a bit different... dpub-aria work is rec-track
17:22:47 [dauwhe]
... so if it stays in IG, we must work with a working group
17:23:01 [dauwhe]
... so that needs to be in WG, and is already in the charter
17:23:28 [dauwhe]
garth: CSS-related work could happen in liason between WG and CSSWG
17:23:39 [dauwhe]
ivan: or the BG
17:23:56 [dauwhe]
garth: so there's at least three groups here--BG, WG, CG
17:24:06 [dauwhe]
... based on bandwidth, I think IG may want to wind down
17:24:26 [dauwhe]
... and all of us may be delighted at Garth's able leadership
17:24:39 [dauwhe]
... but I wouldn't see us doing both
17:24:43 [garth]
17:24:43 [clapierre1]
17:25:55 [dauwhe]
clapierre1: the a11y task force published a note on WCAG gaps
17:26:01 [dauwhe]
... that should be considered for the WG
17:26:03 [ivan]
17:26:06 [dkaplan3]
agreed with charles 100%
17:26:07 [ivan]
ack clapierre1
17:26:09 [dauwhe]
... there are certainly some gaps
17:26:11 [garth]
ack cl
17:26:17 [dkaplan3]
many things were left as "future work"
17:26:18 [garth]
ack ivan
17:26:28 [dauwhe]
ivan: this is separate agenda item
17:26:35 [ivan]
Topic: WCAG and the WG
17:26:44 [dauwhe]
... maybe George knows
17:27:07 [dauwhe]
... my understanding is that in the new WCAG charter, the publishing industry's a11y requirements are now in scope
17:27:17 [Avneesh]
17:27:20 [dauwhe]
... if this is really the case, that WCAG will pick up those items
17:27:29 [dkaplan3]
17:27:31 [dauwhe]
... then I don't think it's helpful if 2 working groups do that work
17:27:37 [dauwhe]
.... that can only lead to problems
17:27:56 [dauwhe]
... if WCAG is doing the work, then our job is to liase, offer oversight, bring new issues, review work...
17:28:04 [dauwhe]
... but the work focused on WCAG
17:28:20 [dauwhe]
... if not, then there would need to be a rec from Pubishing WG
17:28:22 [garth]
17:28:30 [dauwhe]
... but I would be thrilled if admin fell on WCAG
17:29:00 [dauwhe]
Avneesh: the WCAG 2.1 journey started in 2016
17:29:03 [garth]
17:29:08 [garth]
ack Avn
17:29:10 [Avneesh]
"Develop a recommendation-track update to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. This update will clarify and improve applicability to content on mobile devices, in digital publications, and on devices using a wider range of inputs such as touch screens and stylus digitizers, as well as adding improvements to better support users with disabilities including low vision and cognitive, language, and learning impairments."
17:29:15 [dauwhe]
... that group wanted only dpub-aria, but we added publishing to their scope
17:29:26 [dauwhe]
... this was a reluctand addition to WCAG scope
17:29:36 [dauwhe]
... when we talk about practical things
17:29:46 [dauwhe]
... there are a lot of issues, such as a11y metadata
17:29:57 [dauwhe]
... WCAG doesn't think of this as a high priority
17:30:04 [dauwhe]
... there is a lot of uncertainty there
17:30:19 [dauwhe]
... this is a new thing for them; there is some resistance
17:30:22 [ivan]
17:30:26 [dauwhe]
... we need a big push from the DPUB community
17:31:03 [dauwhe]
... the ball is being passed back and forth. we need to know who is responsible
17:31:11 [dauwhe]
garth: does this need to be nailed down before the WG charter?
17:31:14 [dauwhe]
Avneesh: YES
17:31:15 [clapierre1]
17:31:29 [dauwhe]
... the IDPF has given a high priority to a11y, and we have achieved a lot
17:31:34 [dauwhe]
... we cannot drop that in W3C
17:31:42 [dauwhe]
garth: agreed
17:31:49 [BillMcCoy]
17:31:58 [garth]
ack dp
17:31:58 [dauwhe]
dkaplan3: I agree with Ivan that having one group focusing is good
17:32:01 [garth]
adk dk
17:32:03 [ivan]
ack dkaplan3
17:32:03 [garth]
17:32:11 [garth]
ack dkap
17:32:12 [ivan]
ack dkaplan
17:32:18 [dauwhe]
... one problem with a11y task force was all the different groups with non-ideal communication
17:32:39 [dauwhe]
... but I want to emphasize that, although WCAG is theoretically open to DPUB concerns
17:32:51 [dauwhe]
... but we are a tiny priority, and they don't understand
17:33:02 [dauwhe]
... that publishing has a separate set of priorities
17:33:18 [dauwhe]
... and people on WCAG don't understand why they are particularly important
17:33:37 [dauwhe]
... So maybe we can get more publishing folks on WCAG
17:33:47 [dauwhe]
... or else we need other groups to advise WCAG
17:33:59 [dauwhe]
... but we can't just hope WCAG will understand today
17:34:18 [dauwhe]
ivan: we will have to have a joint meeting with WCAG
17:34:24 [BillMcCoy]
+1 to joint meeting w/ WCAG
17:34:28 [dauwhe]
... we cannot decide unilaterally
17:34:46 [dauwhe]
... there there is the a11y metadata story
17:34:57 [dauwhe]
... I understand that that community never did
17:35:10 [dauwhe]
... I think a11y metadata will be in scope for our WG no matter what
17:35:29 [dauwhe]
... for the WCAG story, the problem I have is that I don't know how modular WCAG is
17:35:39 [dauwhe]
... it was a monolithic document which addressed several things
17:35:51 [dauwhe]
... if we do WCAG work in our WG then we create a different document
17:35:57 [garth]
17:36:01 [dauwhe]
... a REC is usually under the "control" of one WG
17:36:05 [garth]
ack ivan
17:36:24 [dauwhe]
... there have been cases in the past where there was a joint publication of two WGs, but that's complicated
17:36:46 [dauwhe]
... so if we do it here, it would not be a formal part of WCAG; it will be a separate document
17:36:49 [dauwhe]
... which concerns me
17:37:04 [Bill_Kasdorf]
17:37:18 [dauwhe]
... talking to WCAG people as soon as possible, in next few weeks, will be very important
17:37:22 [dauwhe]
garth: exactly
17:37:35 [dauwhe]
... who does the drafting? is a good question
17:37:41 [dauwhe]
... we need this meeting.
17:38:16 [dauwhe]
BillMcCoy: Jeff and Tim and others want is that there are things in EPUB that could benefit the web as a whole
17:38:23 [dauwhe]
... Media overlays is a great example
17:38:32 [dauwhe]
... it's not specific to publications
17:38:44 [dauwhe]
... but we should be thinking about making this an OWP feature
17:38:49 [garth]
17:38:53 [garth]
ack Bill
17:39:08 [dauwhe]
... packaging is another example, something that applies to more than publishing
17:39:10 [chaals]
[+1 to getting DBup folks into Accessibility group. Note also that there is support for a11y metadata from others who are not currently engaged but understand the requirement - … Note that WCAG 2.1 is essentially working on being able to add *specific, generally applicable* criteria - i.e. it won't make it if it helps some things but breaks others, and it needs to be directly about accessibility]
17:39:14 [garth]
q+ Bill_Kas
17:39:27 [garth]
ack BillMc
17:39:27 [dauwhe]
... but let's do them in a general matter, not a publication-specific manner
17:39:28 [ivan]
17:40:02 [dauwhe]
George: I see that there are items in publishing that are specific to publishing
17:40:06 [dauwhe]
... for example, reading order
17:40:24 [dauwhe]
... there isn't that concept in WCAG, and it's specific to publishing, and very important for a11y
17:40:33 [dkaplan3]
17:40:44 [dauwhe]
... can we identify certain things that are part of publication content that we could develop and have WCAG people review
17:40:57 [dauwhe]
... what is the breakpoint/handoff between the two groups?
17:41:06 [garth]
ack Bill
17:41:27 [dauwhe]
Bill_Kasdorf: the fate of all the EPUB specs, including the satellite specs, specifically EPUB A11Y 1.0
17:41:46 [dauwhe]
... that was deliberately not an EPUB 3.X spec, but to be referencable outside of EPUB
17:41:55 [dauwhe]
... what happens to those specs in the future?
17:42:11 [Avneesh]
17:42:12 [dauwhe]
... that's the result of George's push for a baseline a11y spec
17:42:29 [dauwhe]
... I'm not sure it belongs in the EPUB3 CG becasuse that is so EPUB-specific
17:42:32 [garth]
ack ivan
17:43:13 [dauwhe]
ivan: I think it would be helpful if the a11y experts in the group draft, very explicitly, things you think are very necessary work items
17:43:28 [dauwhe]
... the generalization of the EPUB a11y doc might be one of them
17:43:32 [dauwhe]
... there is the metadata issue
17:43:39 [dauwhe]
... and maybe more to be added to WCAG
17:43:48 [dauwhe]
... we should bring a good list of items to these meetings
17:43:55 [dauwhe]
... I don't have the knowledge to make such a list
17:44:23 [dauwhe]
... so then we can say, for example, metadata is in scope for Pub WG charter, the other things might go to other groups, etc
17:44:33 [dauwhe]
dkaplan3: I'm going to do magic
17:44:42 [dauwhe]
... and answer what Ivan and George asked for
17:44:53 [dauwhe]
... remember the note that the a11y task force published last year?
17:45:01 [dauwhe]
... we know it doesn't cover everything
17:45:24 [ivan]
17:45:25 [dauwhe]
... but this note precisely states our a11y priorities, many of which can be addressed by other groups at w3c
17:45:27 [garth]
17:45:35 [ivan]
ack dkaplan
17:45:35 [garth]
ack dkap
17:45:52 [dauwhe]
... but this is a note to other groups dealing with a11y that we think need to be addressed
17:45:57 [dauwhe]
... so we should remind folks of this
17:46:04 [dauwhe]
... I don't think we should edit it
17:46:14 [dauwhe]
... we need people to act on it
17:46:39 [garth]
ack Avn
17:46:58 [dauwhe]
Avneesh: epub ally is build on WCAG, but includes stuff missing in WCAG
17:47:09 [dauwhe]
... the techniques are in line with what WCAG does
17:47:27 [dauwhe]
... so this spec, in conjunction with the DPUB note, describe what we need
17:48:02 [dauwhe]
... how do we move EPUB A11Y spec forward in W3C? We don't want to just maintain, we want to move forward
17:48:09 [BillMcCoy]
EPUB 3 Community Group charter include ongoing development not just "maintenance"
17:48:19 [dauwhe]
... it would take 3-5 years to put everything in WCAG
17:48:20 [BillMcCoy]
we can tweak if the language in the starter charter is not clear
17:48:22 [dauwhe]
... that's not fast enough
17:48:31 [dauwhe]
garth: that's an argument for doing that in this WG?
17:48:33 [dauwhe]
Avneesh: yes
17:48:38 [BillMcCoy]
17:48:47 [garth]
ack ivan
17:48:47 [dauwhe]
... CG looks too weak for more than maintenance
17:49:02 [dauwhe]
ivan: however, my down-to-earth job is to write a charter
17:49:09 [dauwhe]
... and I can't put the a11y note in the charter
17:49:30 [dauwhe]
... I would need the two paragraphs that defines in the charter level this is what this or that WG must deliver
17:49:40 [chaals]
[WCAG 2.1 is on a very fixed timeline, so you need to have stuff ready for them on that timeline, and the rest might get into 2.2 or whatever comes next, which doesn't *yet* seem to have a time pressure]
17:49:44 [dauwhe]
... the input docs are these two things (DPUB a11y note and EPUB a11y spec)
17:50:05 [dauwhe]
... then we can go back to WCAG and say, 'this is what we think shoudl be done'
17:50:16 [dauwhe]
... and we can ask them if it's ok if we do it
17:50:32 [dauwhe]
ivan: there is a timeline with WCAG
17:50:35 [garth]
17:50:54 [dauwhe]
Avneesh: there is some push to put things in WCAG 3, which is a long way off
17:51:16 [dauwhe]
garth: Ivan, it looks like you want a volunteer to draft charter text. Can Deborah or Avneesh do that?
17:51:20 [dauwhe]
dkaplan3: I'll jump in
17:51:37 [clapierre1]
17:51:43 [dauwhe]
... the a11y task force put itself on hold
17:51:53 [dauwhe]
... but we're seeing the bat-signal, and need to come out of retirement
17:52:09 [dauwhe]
garth: that sounds like an action item for the a11y task force
17:52:22 [ivan]
17:52:23 [dauwhe]
... and to provide the elevator pitch for a11y in the DPUB charter
17:52:24 [dkaplan3]
17:52:29 [dauwhe]
ivan: can I add one thing?
17:52:44 [dauwhe]
... if you look at the charter draft, one is the geeral description, which is where I need your help
17:52:51 [dauwhe]
... there are reference docs, which is easy
17:52:55 [dauwhe]
... and there's a liason section
17:53:14 [dauwhe]
... so we have to have a diplomatically acceptable of how we would work together with WCAG
17:53:22 [dauwhe]
... I'll need your help there, too
17:53:33 [dkaplan3]
Ivan, we'll have to call on you for diplomatic expertise!
17:53:34 [ivan]
ack ivan
17:53:45 [dauwhe]
BillMcCoy: I agree with Ivan about liason with WCAG
17:53:47 [garth]
ack BillM
17:53:49 [garth]
17:53:58 [dauwhe]
... occam's razor is for things that will end up in W3C REC
17:54:09 [dauwhe]
... the a11y thing is intended to be a moving target
17:54:37 [ivan]
17:54:42 [dauwhe]
... but scope of epub3 CG should not be just errata, but also ongoing development of things that don't need w3c rec track
17:54:47 [garth]
17:54:53 [dauwhe]
... I think the a11y stuff might be suitable for the CG
17:55:15 [dauwhe]
... the CG is more than errata
17:55:15 [clapierre1]
17:55:34 [garth]
ack ivan
17:55:35 [dauwhe]
ivan: one thing, BillM
17:55:36 [garth]
17:55:59 [dauwhe]
... as far as I know, the a11y it's much more important for certain docs to be recommendations, due to legal results
17:56:05 [BillMcCoy]
EPUB 3 is an ISO Technical Specification and we plan to upgrade EPUB 3.1 to ISO Standard
17:56:27 [BillMcCoy]
EPUB Accessibility as an ISO Specification in 18 months may trump EPUB Accessibility as W3C Recommendation in 3 years
17:56:34 [dauwhe]
... notes may work for some things, but with a11y we may need recs
17:57:09 [BillMcCoy]
sorry to use the word "trump" ;-)
17:57:09 [dauwhe]
garth: EPUB3 exists in ISO world
17:57:21 [dauwhe]
... I think we should get this in the charter at least for discussion
17:57:30 [dauwhe]
... but more discussions to come about where the work would happen
17:57:33 [garth]
17:57:38 [garth]
ack clap
17:57:46 [dauwhe]
clapierre1: the a11y task force will meet this Thursday to draft something for the charter
17:58:08 [garth]
17:58:15 [dauwhe]
garth: there's nobody on the queue
17:58:31 [dauwhe]
... I thought the wcag discussion would take moments
17:58:41 [dauwhe]
... but it may be good in that Leonard is missing
17:58:53 [dauwhe]
... and he kicked off the initial discussions of the PWP topics
17:59:56 [dauwhe]
... the discussion last week about the definition of web publication, and the text about a11y--both of those were drafted by Ivan, so those are resolved
18:00:16 [garth]
18:00:20 [dauwhe]
... so I'd consider that finished, then we can move to online/offline and manifests next week
18:00:30 [garth]
18:00:36 [ivan]
--- adjurned
18:00:37 [dauwhe]
... and as the hour has past, we are done!
18:00:45 [dauwhe]
... thanks to the a11y task force!
18:01:05 [clapierre1]
clapierre1 has left #dpub
18:01:40 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
18:01:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ivan
18:02:07 [ivan]
trackbot, end telcon
18:02:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:02:07 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Avneesh, Deborah_Kaplan, dauwhe, ivan, hadrien, Karen, Bill_Kasdorf, clapierre, george, Vlad, duga, Vagner
18:02:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:02:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:02:16 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:02:16 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
18:02:16 [garth]
And from the agenda for this week, we did items: 1,2,4,5, and 3.1