16:37:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #dpub
16:37:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/03/06-dpub-irc
16:37:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:37:48 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #dpub
16:37:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be dpub
16:37:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
16:37:51 <trackbot> Meeting: Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference
16:37:51 <trackbot> Date: 06 March 2017
16:38:17 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/CADExNBOHQW9ywEe2onERF-HVTv-HHBfisMB_Gorg2_0rtPO4+w@mail.gmail.com
16:38:18 <ivan> Chair: Garth
16:38:33 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: agenda for 2017-03-06: http://www.w3.org/mid/CADExNBOHQW9ywEe2onERF-HVTv-HHBfisMB_Gorg2_0rtPO4+w@mail.gmail.com
16:55:21 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #dpub
16:56:28 <Vlad> Vlad has joined #dpub
16:56:46 <ivan> Present+ George, Ivan
16:57:32 <Avneesh> present+ Avneesh
16:57:38 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #dpub
16:59:22 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #dpub
16:59:58 <dauwhe> present+ dauwhe
17:00:03 <laudrain> present+
17:00:32 <Garth> Garth has joined #dpub
17:00:38 <ivan> present+ dauwhe
17:00:54 <Rick_Johnson> Rick_Johnson has joined #dpub
17:01:01 <Rick_Johnson> present+ Rick_Johnson
17:01:03 <dkaplan3> present+ Deborah_Kaplan
17:01:10 <leonardr> leonardr has joined #dpub
17:01:11 <Karen> present+ Karen
17:01:24 <leonardr> Present+ Leonard
17:02:18 <ivan> present+ garth
17:02:21 <laudrain> present+ Luc
17:02:30 <NickRuffilo> NickRuffilo has joined #dpub
17:02:32 <Garth> present+ Garth
17:02:41 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #dpub
17:02:50 <ivan> present+ Vlad
17:02:55 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+ Bill_Kasdorf
17:03:20 <mattg> present+ mattg
17:03:33 <NickRuffilo> scribenick: nickruffilo
17:03:56 <ivan> present+ NickRuffilo
17:03:57 <rdeltour> rdeltour has joined #dpub
17:04:05 <clapierre> clapierre has joined #DPUB
17:04:12 <rdeltour> present+
17:04:15 <clapierre> present+
17:04:33 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "The minutes are approved."
17:04:54 <Vlad> present+
17:04:55 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
17:04:55 <Zakim> Present: George, Ivan, Avneesh, dauwhe, laudrain, Rick_Johnson, Deborah_Kaplan, Karen, Leonard, garth, Luc, Vlad, Bill_Kasdorf, mattg, NickRuffilo, rdeltour, clapierre
17:04:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see clapierre, rdeltour, Bill_Kasdorf, NickRuffilo, leonardr, Rick_Johnson, Garth, dkaplan3, Vlad, Avneesh, Zakim, RRSAgent, BillMcCoy, darobin_, mattg, Karen, ivan,
17:04:59 <Zakim> ... dauwhe, liam, astearns, plinss, Bert, trackbot, JakeA, bigbluehat, iank_
17:05:09 <ivan> Topic: A11y in the charter
17:05:11 <Avneesh> q+
17:05:14 <dkaplan3> q+
17:05:18 <NickRuffilo> ...: "Carley from Pierson put regrets in, but that might change.  We'll carry welcoming pearson until then week."
17:05:22 <Garth> q?
17:05:23 <dkaplan3> q-
17:05:31 <NickRuffilo> ...: "Anything to say about accessibility in the charter?"
17:05:34 <Garth> ack Ave
17:05:41 <Garth> ack Avn
17:05:59 <NickRuffilo> Avneesh: "We worked on the text and posted it to the list - and we have agreement on it, so we'd like to post it on the chat and get opinions."
17:06:28 <NickRuffilo> Avneesh: "One chunk is for the scope, and the other is for co-ordination section."
17:06:57 <brady_duga> brady_duga has joined #dpub
17:07:10 <brady_duga> present+ duga
17:07:15 <Garth> q?
17:07:17 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #dpub
17:07:57 <HeatherF> HeatherF has joined #dpub
17:08:18 <ivan> The Working Group will incorporate accessibility considerations into the Working Group's deliverables. Recommendation-track deliverables  will contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of readers with different needs and capabilities. This includes general WCAG and WAI requirements of the W3C; additional extended requirements will be identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative specifications. Profiles of
17:08:18 <ivan>  Web Publications may be defined with more stringent accessibility requirements.
17:08:21 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has joined #dpub
17:08:35 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "This is the statement for the scope"
17:08:43 <HeatherF> present+ Heather_Flanagan
17:08:57 <NickRuffilo> Avneesh: "We can start the discussion from scope, but if you wish to paste both, that works."
17:08:59 <cmaden2> present+ Chris_Maden
17:09:01 <ivan> For liaison section: The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with WCAG/ARIA Working Group to integrate accessibility requirements created as part of its recommendation-track deliverables into generalized technology. One or more pipeline of the requirements will be maintained to manage diverse turnaround times of the W3C groups.
17:09:38 <leonardr> Q+
17:09:56 <NickRuffilo> q?
17:10:10 <Garth> q?
17:10:19 <Garth> ack leo
17:10:49 <dkaplan3> q+
17:10:50 <ivan> q+
17:11:03 <NickRuffilo> Leonard: "I'm a little confused/concerned about the 2nd sentence where we're specifically calliing out WCAG, WAI and identifying.  I think we don't need it.  The profiles piece is more than sufficient."
17:11:29 <dauwhe> q+
17:11:30 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "So the recommendation is dropping the middle of the 3 sentences?"
17:11:32 <Garth> q?
17:11:50 <Garth> ack dkap
17:12:23 <leonardr> Q+
17:12:34 <NickRuffilo> Deborah: "We wanted that there for specific reasons.  We want to make it clear that there will be a pipeline from our recommendations.  Our recommendations cannot change WCAG unless there is a specific pipeline.  A lot of what we will be requiring will require modifications and we want it on their timeline.  So we want to make sure there is pipeline."
17:12:48 <Garth> q?
17:14:11 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "To add to Deborah, the problem is that we expect during the work on the publication, features will arrive on accessibility that current WCAG documents do not cover.  we know this because the accessibility people have already put together a note on this.  To make it clear that we may go beyond what WCAG gives, we just want to make sure that people understand that we add things that are
17:14:11 <NickRuffilo> important.  In this sense, I'm pretty much in favor of keeping this sentence."
17:14:50 <dkaplan3> q+
17:14:55 <Garth> q?
17:14:59 <ivan> q-
17:14:59 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "We have the next agenda item coming up to talk about where the next generation of the ARIA work will happen.  It's only semi-related.  Does it make it more accurate by changing the Will to a May?  Leonard?"
17:15:05 <Garth> ack ivan
17:15:17 <Garth> ack dau
17:15:25 <Avneesh> q+
17:15:32 <NickRuffilo> Dave: "I think the sentence clarifies the larger goal - that we are going to use existing web accessibility groups but may go further."
17:15:33 <ivan> ack leonardr
17:15:35 <Garth> ack leo
17:16:18 <ivan> q+
17:16:31 <NickRuffilo> Leonard: "I get what has been said, but why are we specificially calling out - in that section - when we've later called on in the liasions area.  We're going to work with lots of other groups - so that is why I am concerend.  It isn't part of scope - it's a different part of the document - it doesn't belong."
17:17:05 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "I get where you're going, but it seems as though the portion after the semicolon is clearly scope.  So we could keep the extended scope."
17:17:30 <NickRuffilo> Leonard: "Why is that specific to accessibility?  Why are we calling this out more than CSS or any other area?  We are going to liase with other groups."
17:17:37 <Garth> q?
17:17:40 <NickRuffilo> Dave: "Because it's more important."
17:18:12 <leonardr> @dauwhe - while accessibility is very important, I would argue that security is more important...so why not call that out?
17:18:51 <Garth> q?
17:18:56 <leonardr> Q+
17:18:57 <Garth> ack dkap
17:19:46 <NickRuffilo> Deborah: "The reason it is important here: we know with the work done and what we've published.  Some of the things we do are impossible if existing specs are not modified.  Some things are extremely difficult to get existing specs modified - it is exceedingly complex.  It is political and timeconsuming to get requirements debated and accepted.  It is important - in order for us to succeed to
17:19:46 <NickRuffilo> achieve the goals that are set - there needs to be an explicit callout.  And there will be stringent requirements that will be pipelined.  Does that mean it shouldn't exist in security?  It could.  We're not saying the other things aren't as important, but that what we must do will not be possible unless we make it explicitly clear."
17:19:49 <Garth> a?
17:19:50 <NickRuffilo> q+
17:19:50 <dauwhe> +1
17:19:51 <NickRuffilo> q?
17:19:51 <Garth> q?
17:19:58 <ivan> ack Avneesh
17:21:30 <NickRuffilo> Avneesh: "Again, the main concept is regarding the timelines.  It looks easy to say: 'put it all in WCAG'.  WCAG can be a long struggle.  The timelines are long.  It could be 5-8 years is something to expect.  WP becomes a recommendation first.  Will our spec exist in the universe without any specification?  This is important due to the slow process of the WCAG.  In the working group of digital
17:21:30 <NickRuffilo> publishing, we should be working with the pipeline and feeding the WCAG pipeline.  We cannot expect the timelines to meet."
17:21:31 <ivan> q-
17:21:31 <Garth> ack ivan
17:23:22 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "In a way Avneesh covered all the items in my mind.  I have a small disagreement with what Deborah has said.  Some of the issues that are identified may end up standardized by this group and not necessarily by the other groups.  We need to make it clear in the text/scope that we leave open to make it possible.  This text is blissfully silent to say whether that is here or there.  The timing
17:23:22 <NickRuffilo> issue will be a definite factor.  I agree with Leonard that we will have issues.  We may have issues with any other item.  I personally prefer - if those issues come up - I prefer if specific issues come up, that we should make it explicit additionally and not remove what's there."
17:23:57 <Garth> q?
17:23:58 <NickRuffilo> ...: "compared to what was noted.  I don't expect us to standardize anything with security.  It's probably the same for all the others.  In this sense, it's a slight bit different.  "
17:24:04 <Garth> ack leo
17:24:17 <dkaplan3> q+
17:25:49 <Garth> q?
17:26:07 <NickRuffilo> Leonard: "I've been looking over the charter, and I think I have a solution, but it may require a little bit of info from ivan.  We have, down in 3.1 - 4 specific deliverables.  Those are clearly defined individual deliverables that the group is going to do.  We talk later about use-cases.  If you go up to the scope, we are only focused on that first bullet - packaged web publications.  I wonder
17:26:07 <NickRuffilo> if the way to address this, is to take the 2nd half of the sentence, can we take the 2nd part of the sentence and put that in a separate paragraph?  Instead of tying it to web publications - make it a separate deliverable.  Other work/deliverables.  If we can pull it out of the scope, it will get called out so that the other folks can see that we are very serious about doing that."
17:26:18 <ivan> q?
17:27:47 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "To be very clear about charter organization, the Packaged/Web publications.  That doesn't mean we have to produce 4 and only 4 documents.  If we need to have two or three specifications, that is our decision and we are allowed to do that.  To put it another way, if I call it out separately, as another bullet item on the same level, we are suddenly obliged to do that.  Do we want to make
17:27:47 <NickRuffilo> that decision - I'm not sure.  The current text leaves us a certain level of freedom, what you say gives more granularity."
17:27:57 <Garth> ack Nick
17:28:51 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
17:29:03 <Garth> q?
17:30:49 <Garth> q?
17:30:53 <Garth> ack dkap
17:31:20 <NickRuffilo> Deborah: "To a certain extent - much of this was constrainted that we had to keep it short, clear, and leave out politics - so this wording was the most logical.  We should note that the concerns have been heard and will be considered."
17:31:42 <ivan> q+
17:31:47 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "You did not like the 'Will to a may' transition.  I still remain that we might want to switch?"
17:32:19 <Garth> The Working Group will incorporate accessibility considerations into the Working Group's deliverables. Recommendation-track deliverables  will contain mechanisms to make Web Publications accessible to a broad range of readers with different needs and capabilities. This includes general WCAG and WAI requirements of the W3C; additional extended requirements will be identified as conformance requirements in the Working Group’s normative specifications.
17:32:20 <Garth> Profiles of Web Publications may be defined with more stringent accessibility requirements.
17:32:41 <NickRuffilo> Deborah: "For simple things such as legal constraints, we will be moving much faster than WCAG.  But it's not a matter of slowness, they don't know about them.  it will be our job to notify them.  It's a question - if one person is folding, and one is putting away, the putting away cannot happen until the folder is done folding."
17:32:57 <ivan> q-
17:33:01 <clapierre> I am happy with the text as is.
17:33:04 <Garth> q?
17:33:07 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "I'm not too unhappy.  Ivan is not to happy.  Leonard - is this a hold your breath and turn blue?"
17:33:20 <NickRuffilo> Leonard: "Can you tell me exactly where this is going to go?"
17:33:23 <Garth> q?
17:33:31 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "In section 2 - 3rd bullet item."
17:34:03 <NickRuffilo> Leonard: "If you put it after the bullets, as a separate bullets, I'd be OK, but it doesn't flow with the bullet.  I would leave in the first sentence in the 3rd bullet, and put the rest after all the bullets."
17:34:14 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "I'm fine with that."
17:34:27 <NickRuffilo> Deborah: "I'd like to see it first, can we move this to email?"
17:34:48 <leonardr> +1 on the branch!
17:35:04 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "Can we make a branch with the new text."
17:35:10 <Garth> q?
17:35:13 <Garth> The Digital Publishing Working Group will coordinate with WCAG/ARIA Working Group to integrate accessibility requirements created as part of its recommendation-track deliverables into generalized technology. One or more pipeline of the requirements will be maintained to manage diverse turnaround times of the W3C groups.
17:35:41 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "That leaves us with the Liason section.  I just posted that above."
17:36:05 <leonardr> Q+
17:36:10 <Garth> q?
17:36:28 <NickRuffilo> Leonard: "It's great text - i just want to confirm exactly where it's going - 4.1 W3C groups?"
17:36:31 <Garth> q?
17:36:41 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "In 4.1 the last item is 'accessibility guidelines working group.'"
17:36:43 <Garth> q?
17:36:48 <Garth> ack leo
17:36:49 <NickRuffilo> Leonard: "Sounds great - thanks for clarification."
17:37:39 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "Ivan, there was an email thread you started with the ARIA folks ..."
17:37:55 <ivan> Topic: Publication of the drafts
17:37:56 <Garth> q?
17:37:59 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "Can i get one thing out of the way first?  Can we have a vote on the publication of the draft?"
17:38:12 <Garth> q?
17:38:20 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "I just want agreement that the PWP and UCR should be published as draft.  If we agree it will be published this thursday."
17:38:27 <Garth> q?
17:38:29 <dkaplan3> +1
17:38:31 <NickRuffilo> +1
17:38:32 <laudrain> +1
17:38:33 <HeatherF> +1
17:38:48 <ivan> Topic: ARIA WG work
17:39:14 <Garth> :-)
17:39:37 <laudrain> :)
17:41:19 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "The way DPUB-ARIA 1 was done, was that there was a common task force between the two groups.  Since it's only an interest group, the document will be published as a recommendation by the other group.  Since we have two working groups, we have 3 different choices.  We can say we follow the same model as before - where it gets published by ARIA.  We can publish it and ask for help from ARIA
17:41:19 <NickRuffilo> if we need it.  Or we take a joint deliverable group, which means both groups have to agree with the document - and both groups have say in it.  But we have to say how we are going to do that in the charter.  I have asked some people - the chairs - for the time being, I have not gotten any more replay except the staff conact.  They seem to be OK with a joint release."
17:41:26 <Garth> q?
17:42:00 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "Avneesh/Deborah - was there an accessiblity conference?  Maybe that is why they didn't answer.  We may have a preference on how we want to proceed.  Maybe Matt can comment."
17:42:31 <Garth> q?
17:43:18 <NickRuffilo> Matt: "I did see a response from rich, saying if we weren't planning on doing new mappings, so he didn't see a need on doing a joint release.  I think that is a good guiding principle.  It all depends on if we want to do the mappings or not.  If we're not planning on doing the mapping...  If we're planning on doing some of the mappings, we should consider doing a joint.  If we're doing semantics
17:43:18 <NickRuffilo> without the mappings, then doing it alone probably makes more sense."
17:43:23 <clapierre> CSUN was the a11y conference last week.
17:43:24 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "I don't have an answer to that..."
17:43:42 <Garth> q?
17:44:36 <NickRuffilo> Matt: "It's hard to gauge what comes next.  At this point we probably hammered out the painful details of doing a vocabulary like this.  Alot of the time was spent explaining why we needed this to exist.  Those issues have now been resolved.  I don't think it is going to be as much work.  We were really establishing the groundwork.  I'd be good either way. If we want to do joint, I'd be OK with
17:44:36 <NickRuffilo> that."
17:44:40 <Garth> q?
17:44:45 <ivan> q+
17:45:29 <Garth> ack ivan
17:46:18 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "I must admit that I am always a bit of weary of administrative things - so anything that reduces admin is helpful.  If we have to req-track and vote by two different groups it might lead to delays of several weeks.  It's a good reason why we should keep it in group.  But there is no reason to have them vote on things that are more related to us.  I'm in favor of keeping it just to us, but
17:46:18 <NickRuffilo> that's just one voice."
17:46:19 <Garth> q?
17:46:35 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to Ivan
17:46:41 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "Perhaps we should do what you say - note it as separate."
17:47:27 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "We have 15 minutes less - Ivan do you want to - with completing the charter - we want it published.  We have a little changes with the accessibility language, then we should republish..."
17:47:37 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "The charter now is simply a living document..."
17:47:54 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "My point is that I'd like to say to the business group ' here we are in the draft, do you have comments?'"
17:49:11 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "there is one more thing we have to work on, but we can do later - something about the timeline.  Content wise if we have the changes done on the accessibility one, I think we are done - but there are two issues that I put there way back because we did have a discussion if we should have references to the BFF work on the one hand and documents coming from the Readium consortium - saying
17:49:11 <NickRuffilo> that I'm waiting for some references there.  It would be good to have those by next week."
17:50:00 <Garth> q?
17:50:01 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "I think we discussed that and they were going to provide us with some links - there were some discussion - as long as we 'may or may not' do something with these documents.  I think we're OK going to the business group - and late binding that.  We should pull Rick's chain one more time and if we don't get anything, then drop it."
17:50:05 <leonardr> Q+
17:50:09 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "The less yellow blobs in the charter, the better."
17:50:13 <leonardr> Q-
17:50:21 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "I'm not unhappy to just drop it...."
17:50:22 <leonardr> +1 to removing them until someone submits the URL
17:50:36 <Garth> q?
17:51:07 <dauwhe> q+
17:51:08 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "Actually - Keeping it there is better - as the question on 'what do we do with the inheretence of IDPF will come up.  when it comes to the AC votes, the yellow blobs need to go away."
17:51:22 <dauwhe> q-
17:51:26 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "Our last agenda items - should I run through the Face 2 face?"
17:51:34 <Garth> q?
17:51:41 <ivan> Topic: F2F meeting
17:52:49 <ivan> q+
17:53:12 <Rick_Johnson> +1 to moving the date back
17:53:16 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "Tentatively scheduled 5th or 6th.  we have an 8 week notice.  But - to in order to hit that, we must send it by april 10th, which is a month and a few days.  Part of me likes that as it's a deadline, which might help motivate the process.  part of me thinks we should stay the course.  The other suggestion is to move our F2F back 3ish weeks to a different venue.  That's where we are.  Ivan
17:53:16 <NickRuffilo> - did I get that?"
17:53:19 <Garth> q?
17:53:22 <Garth> ack ivan
17:54:16 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "If I want to have proper prices for my flight tickets, then I should make the reservation within 1-2 weeks.  After that, prices go up - especially for those coming from Europe.  If I make a reservation now, for early June, and we have to move the meeting, I lose lots of meetings."
17:54:27 <Garth> q?
17:54:42 <HeatherF> q+
17:54:46 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "We should have a deadline as to when we'll have a deadline."
17:55:25 <NickRuffilo> Ivan: "Is the 10th of april doable or not - if we have doubts, I would prefer to go for a safe bet and do it towards the end of june.  That is more realistic in my books."
17:55:32 <leonardr> Q+
17:55:37 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "Deadline for a deadline is 2 weeks from today.  Is that enough?"
17:55:39 <Karen> q+
17:55:42 <Garth> q?
17:56:18 <ivan> ack HeatherF
17:56:19 <NickRuffilo> Heather: "I have to side with ivan - I book 4-6 months in advanced.  Having 2 months notice I'm usually booked.  The longer lead time, the more that someone like me - who is an avid planner, can fit it."
17:56:21 <Garth> ack Hea
17:56:25 <Garth> ack leo
17:56:48 <NickRuffilo> Leonard: "In terms of location, I'm more than happy if the group decides to move date/location, that should be reasonable.  If we decide to do Europe, I can make some recommendations."
17:56:52 <Garth> ack Kar
17:57:26 <brady_duga> brady_duga has joined #dpub
17:57:53 <NickRuffilo> Garth: "I heard some grumbling of the 20th.  No later than the 20th we will have this nailed down.  Sounds like some freedom to move it back.  Lets revisit.  My take is that given the business group meeting on the 13th, we don't meed next week but two weeks from today.  The real decision will be made then."
17:57:53 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:57:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/06-dpub-minutes.html ivan
17:57:57 <Garth> q?
17:57:58 <Karen> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/97159/pbg201703f2f/
17:58:17 <dauwhe> q+
17:58:41 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
17:58:53 <NickRuffilo> Karen: "So far there are only 9 people set up for the pub business group in London.  I know there are more people attending who have completed the registration form.  I need to know the food requirements - vegetarian, allergies, etc.  Complete it or email me if you're having issues."
17:58:58 <Garth> q?
17:59:28 <NickRuffilo> Dave: "there may be confusion, it seemed like an "either or" but it was a "both"
17:59:31 <Garth> ack dau
17:59:40 <Garth> ack Bill_Kasdorf
18:00:33 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has left #dpub
18:00:38 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:00:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/06-dpub-minutes.html ivan
18:00:57 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
18:00:57 <Zakim> Present: George, Ivan, Avneesh, dauwhe, laudrain, Rick_Johnson, Deborah_Kaplan, Karen, Leonard, garth, Luc, Vlad, Bill_Kasdorf, mattg, NickRuffilo, rdeltour, clapierre, duga,
18:01:02 <Zakim> ... Heather_Flanagan, Chris_Maden, Benjamin_Young
18:01:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see brady_duga, HeatherF, NickRuffilo, leonardr, Rick_Johnson, Garth, dkaplan3, Zakim, RRSAgent, BillMcCoy, darobin_, mattg, Karen, ivan, dauwhe, liam, astearns, plinss,
18:01:02 <Zakim> ... Bert, trackbot, JakeA, bigbluehat, iank_
18:01:08 <ivan> present+ Laurent
18:01:18 <ivan> rrsagents, draft minutes
18:01:32 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:01:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/06-dpub-minutes.html ivan
18:01:42 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
18:01:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
18:01:43 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been George, Ivan, Avneesh, dauwhe, laudrain, Rick_Johnson, Deborah_Kaplan, Karen, Leonard, garth, Luc, Vlad, Bill_Kasdorf, mattg, NickRuffilo,
18:01:45 <Zakim> ... rdeltour, clapierre, duga, Heather_Flanagan, Chris_Maden, Benjamin_Young, Laurent
18:01:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:01:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/03/06-dpub-minutes.html trackbot
18:01:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
18:01:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items