IRC log of tagmem on 2011-10-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:24 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #tagmem
17:00:24 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-tagmem-irc
17:00:27 [Zakim]: TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started
17:00:34 [Zakim]: +jar
17:00:35 [ht]: ScribeNick: ht
17:00:40 [ht]: Scribe: Henry S. Thompson
17:00:41 [Larry]: Larry has joined #tagmem
17:00:45 [ht]: Chair: Noah Mendelsohn
17:00:51 [ht]: Meeting: TAG telcon
17:00:56 [Zakim]: +Yves
17:01:03 [Zakim]: +Ashok_Malhotra
17:01:10 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
17:01:18 [Zakim]: +Masinter
17:01:20 [JeniT]: Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
17:01:20 [Zakim]: sorry, JeniT, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
17:01:39 [Zakim]: + +47.74.811.aaaa
17:02:43 [Zakim]: +??P20
17:04:00 [noah]: noah has joined #tagmem
17:04:05 [Zakim]: +noah
17:04:20 [ht]: zakim, 47 is DKA
17:04:20 [Zakim]: sorry, ht, I do not recognize a party named '47'
17:04:22 [noah]: zakim, who is here?
17:04:22 [Zakim]: On the phone I see jar, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra, JeniT, Masinter, +47.74.811.aaaa, ht, noah
17:04:24 [Zakim]: On IRC I see noah, Larry, RRSAgent, JeniT, Zakim, jar, Ashok, DKA, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves
17:04:26 [ht]: zakim, +47 is DKA
17:04:26 [Zakim]: +DKA; got it
17:05:04 [Zakim]: -ht
17:05:30 [Zakim]: +??P20
17:06:39 [ht]: Topic: Convene
17:06:51 [ht]: NM: [review of agenda]
17:07:05 [ht]: Topic: Approval of minutes
17:07:08 [NoahM]: NoahM has joined #tagmem
17:07:21 [NoahM]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/10/06-minutes
17:07:23 [ht]: RESOLVED: Minutes of 6 October 2011 approved
17:07:37 [ht]: Topic: Admin
17:07:56 [Ashok]: Yves and i will be at a workshop
17:07:56 [ht]: NM: I'm not available on 20 October -- volunteers to chair?
17:08:01 [Larry]: i'm willing to chair if there are topics to cover
17:08:15 [Larry]: and a quorum
17:08:24 [ht]: DKA: I think we should meet
17:08:36 [ht]: NM: I think Jeni will be absent as well
17:08:43 [JeniT]: I will be absent
17:09:05 [ht]: NM: Tentative plan, LM can cancel, otherwise we will meet
17:09:25 [ht]: NM: I usually read minutes, check email and pending actions on Tuesday
17:09:47 [ht]: I note that we have at most JAR, LM, HST, DKA and PL on such a call
17:10:04 [ht]: Topic: TPAC planning
17:10:14 [Larry]: re TPAC: I might have a conflict after all, not sure I will make it now
17:10:19 [ht]: NM: Attendees as in minutes
17:10:38 [ht]: NM: We will now plan to meet Monday p.m. and Friday a.m.
17:10:50 [ht]: NM: A meeting with Rigo Wenning on Friday
17:11:03 [Larry]: my conflict, if it happens, is for Tuesday evening, Wednesday & Thursday, so I'm sitll OK for MOnday, Friday, and Tuesday day
17:11:18 [ht]: NM: News on SPDY?
17:11:28 [NoahM]: close ACTION-615
17:11:29 [trackbot]: ACTION-615 Check on possible meeting with SPDY folks on 31 Oct at TPAC closed
17:11:29 [ht]: YL: No new, so lets drop that
17:11:54 [ht]: NM: Still leaves the question of what we do about SPDY
17:12:10 [ht]: ... There are signs of adoption increasing
17:12:32 [ht]: ... A move to all-SSL would certainly have architectural implications
17:12:39 [ht]: ... Should we continue to track this
17:13:01 [ht]: JT: I think this is important, but have to much to do to be quick to volunteer
17:13:12 [ht]: s/track this/track this?/
17:13:28 [ht]: LM: I could maybe do this
17:13:50 [ht]: NM: YL to take lead, LM and NM to help
17:14:29 [NoahM]: . ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis of whether TAG should get involved with SPDY
17:14:44 [NoahM]: . ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis of whether TAG/W3C should get involved with SPDY
17:14:50 [ht]: LM: Include W3C
17:15:30 [ht]: YL: More general than just SPDY -- SSL growth partly independent
17:15:37 [Larry]: Is SPDY a HTTP replacement or a HTTP enhancement
17:15:46 [ht]: ... See also Web Sockets
17:16:01 [Larry]: HTTP isn't going to go away in any evolution of the web that I can imagine in the forseeable future -- too well entrenched
17:16:01 [ht]: NM: Focus, or is this about HTTP v. next
17:16:13 [ht]: I would prefer not to overly narrow right away
17:16:32 [ht]: I would like to start with a landscape overview of HTTP v.next and competitors
17:16:40 [ht]: +1 to JJ list entry
17:16:42 [Yves]: . ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis on development around HTTP, like spdy, ssl use, websocket...
17:17:11 [JeniT]: +1 on slightly wider scope
17:17:13 [ht]: LM: Is this better to think of it as an enhancement?
17:17:27 [ht]: NM: Could take either way in. . .
17:17:39 [ht]: NM: OK with wider action
17:17:52 [Larry]: if the result is a W3C community group around SPDY that would be fine :)
17:18:41 [ht]: NM, YL: [due date discussion]
17:18:57 [NoahM]: ACTION: Yves with help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis on development around HTTP, like spdy, ssl use, websocket... Due 2011-11-29
17:18:57 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-618 - With help from Larry, Noah, and Jeni to prepare analysis on development around HTTP, like spdy, ssl use, websocket... Due 2011-11-29 [on Yves Lafon - due 2011-10-20].
17:19:10 [NoahM]: ACTION-615?
17:19:10 [trackbot]: ACTION-615 -- Yves Lafon to check on possible meeting with SPDY folks on 31 Oct at TPAC -- due 2011-10-13 -- CLOSED
17:19:10 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/615
17:19:56 [ht]: NM: Meeting with Device Access WG -- discussing timing with WG chair
17:20:11 [ht]: AM: I have RDB2RDF on Thursday but not Friday
17:20:19 [ht]: Let's do it Friday afternoon?
17:21:40 [ht]: NM: I'll try to get agreement on Friday afternoon
17:21:53 [ht]: ... With flexibility
17:22:02 [NoahM]: ACTION-616?
17:22:02 [trackbot]: ACTION-616 -- Noah Mendelsohn to contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs -- due 2011-10-13 -- OPEN
17:22:02 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/616
17:22:18 [NoahM]: ACTION-616 Due 2011-10-20
17:22:18 [trackbot]: ACTION-616 Contact Fred Hirsch to suggest joint TAG/DAP meeting at TPAC on REST vs. Javascript APIs due date now 2011-10-20
17:22:38 [NoahM]: ACTION-613?
17:22:38 [trackbot]: ACTION-613 -- Daniel Appelquist to organize deep linking breakout at TPAC -- due 2011-10-06 -- CLOSED
17:22:38 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/613
17:22:54 [NoahM]: DKA: Just sent e-mail to Rigo suggesting Friday morning
17:22:59 [ht]: DkA: Wrt Copyright/deep linking, I've invited Rigo for Friday morning
17:23:12 [ht]: DKA: Breakout work ongoing
17:23:22 [ht]: ... Need a more inviting title
17:23:42 [ht]: NM: "Follow a link, get arrested"
17:24:38 [ht]: Topic: Pending review items
17:24:39 [NoahM]: ACTION-518?
17:24:39 [trackbot]: ACTION-518 -- Henry Thompson to henry to report back on efforts to get undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs configured into their tools -- due 2011-08-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:24:39 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/518
17:25:48 [NoahM]: HT: I would like to abandon this. The issue of heavily used (resources?) seemed to have dropped off everyone's radar. I no longer have time or inclination, and W3C seems not to have provisioned the catalog in the way I would have prefered
17:26:15 [noah]: close ACTION-518
17:26:16 [trackbot]: ACTION-518 Henry to report back on efforts to get undertakings from open-source tool authors to ship pre-provisioned catalogs configured into their tools closed
17:26:29 [noah]: ACTION-577?
17:26:29 [trackbot]: ACTION-577 -- Henry Thompson to prepare 3023bis discussion of processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June discussion, when Larry is available -- due 2011-09-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:26:29 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/577
17:27:14 [noah]: HT: I would like to abandon this as well
17:27:55 [noah]: HT: WRT/ XML processor profiles and browsers is simplified(?) I don't now see how to do processor profiles in 3023bis
17:28:07 [noah]: HT: Happy to replace this with an action to report on 3023bis status after TPAC
17:28:28 [noah]: close ACTION-577
17:28:28 [trackbot]: ACTION-577 Prepare 3023bis discussion of processor profiles and "IRIbis and HTML5", leftover from 23 June discussion, when Larry is available closed
17:28:54 [noah]: ACTION: Henry to report on status of 3023bis after TPAC Due 2011-11-15
17:28:55 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-619 - Report on status of 3023bis after TPAC Due 2011-11-15 [on Henry Thompson - due 2011-10-20].
17:29:22 [noah]: ACTION-619 Due 2011-11-15
17:29:22 [trackbot]: ACTION-619 Report on status of 3023bis after TPAC Due 2011-11-15 due date now 2011-11-15
17:29:43 [ht]: trackbot, action 477?
17:29:43 [trackbot]: Sorry, ht, I don't understand 'trackbot, action 477?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
17:29:57 [noah]: ACTION-477?
17:29:57 [trackbot]: ACTION-477 -- Henry Thompson to organize meeting on persistence of domains -- due 2011-10-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:29:57 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/477
17:30:49 [noah]: HT: I draft a call for participation, got agreement from my co-sponsor in Edinburgh. W3M and Ian have approved. I have put it to the organizers, expect approval, but not yet officially announced.
17:31:49 [noah]: close ACTION-477
17:31:49 [trackbot]: ACTION-477 Organize meeting on persistence of domains closed
17:32:03 [Zakim]: -DKA
17:32:06 [noah]: zakim, who is here?
17:32:06 [Zakim]: On the phone I see jar, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra, JeniT, Masinter, noah, ht
17:32:08 [Zakim]: On IRC I see noah, Larry, RRSAgent, JeniT, Zakim, jar, Ashok, DKA, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves
17:32:18 [ht]: ACTION: Henry, with help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15
17:32:18 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - Henry,
17:32:32 [ht]: ACTION: Henry with help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15
17:32:32 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-620 - With help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 [on Henry Thompson - due 2011-10-20].
17:32:49 [Zakim]: +DKA
17:32:49 [ht]: action-620 due 2012-01-15
17:32:49 [trackbot]: ACTION-620 With help from Jonathan, to report on persistent domain workshop, due 2012-01-15 due date now 2012-01-15
17:33:35 [ht]: Topic: Fragment IDs Semantics and Mime Types
17:33:38 [noah]: ACTION-509?
17:33:38 [trackbot]: ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:33:38 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
17:34:02 [jar]: report = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Sep/0014.html
17:34:30 [ht]: JR: Everyone read this?
17:34:49 [ht]: JR: Relation of RDFa Core and media types
17:35:04 [ht]: ... Subsequent discussion has clarified there are two issues here
17:35:04 [Larry]: i've read it and i don't know what to make of it, i'm not happy with any of the options so far
17:35:22 [ht]: JR: 1) Follow your nose (noting RDFa is not a media type)
17:36:08 [ht]: JR: 2) Collision between RDFa Core (which might be used with application/(...+)xml) and 3023bis
17:36:11 [JeniT]: +1 to ruling 3023bis collision out of scope
17:36:55 [ht]: JR: The collision arises because 3023bis says XML media type fragids have to be XPointers
17:37:05 [ht]: q+ to check XPointer _semantics_ is the pblm
17:37:24 [ht]: JR: Want to rule the collision is out of scope for 509
17:37:25 [Larry]: q+ to talk about options & analysis
17:37:31 [noah]: q?
17:37:40 [noah]: ack next
17:37:42 [Zakim]: ht, you wanted to check XPointer _semantics_ is the pblm
17:38:15 [noah]: I'm in favor of separation IF we open a new action now
17:38:34 [noah]: ack Larry
17:38:34 [Zakim]: Larry, you wanted to talk about options & analysis
17:38:46 [ht]: LM: I'm not sure what our action choices are, nor am I happy with what I _do_ understand
17:38:52 [jar_]: jar_ has joined #tagmem
17:38:55 [ht]: JR: Neither am I
17:39:11 [ht]: LM: Maybe getting clear on that is what we should focus on
17:39:22 [Larry]: action-509?
17:39:22 [trackbot]: ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:39:22 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
17:39:24 [ht]: JR: I want to focus on the RDFa Core side of 509
17:39:38 [ht]: ... as RDfa Core is heading for 3rd Last Call
17:39:51 [noah]: q+ to ask whether RDFa core should be asked to hold up pending resolution with 3023bis
17:40:00 [noah]: ack next
17:40:01 [Zakim]: noah, you wanted to ask whether RDFa core should be asked to hold up pending resolution with 3023bis
17:40:04 [ht]: LM: Isn't it possible that RDFa Core isn't the best one to move
17:40:41 [ht]: NM: The relative status of the two specs involved shouldn't determine which one has to move
17:41:16 [ht]: JR: I agree with RDFa Core that it's not their business to talk about media type registration
17:41:36 [ht]: ... The WG resolved several weeks ago that they are not a media type
17:41:55 [ht]: NM: But isn't one of their requirements to be usable with XML
17:42:10 [ht]: ... which means they shouldn't break XML
17:43:01 [ht]: JR: They could get away without mentioning a media type, because the current one (3023) says _nothing_ about frag_ids
17:43:10 [ht]: NM: But we know that 3023 is coming
17:43:18 [ht]: s/3023/3023bis/
17:43:29 [Larry]: i'm noticing WGs avoiding responsibility by saying things are 'out of scope' for them
17:43:54 [ht]: NM: So we should try to stop the impending train wreck if the two specs both go ahead as we anticipate
17:44:52 [ht]: JR: We could do that, but I was trying to work from existing TAG decisions and do the minimum necessary to declare victory
17:45:15 [jar_]: RDFa WG decision on this matter is here: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-10-06
17:45:19 [ht]: ... That is, address the question of the RDFa Core spec. first, and only thereafter turn to negotiating between the two groups
17:46:18 [noah]: I think I specifically asked: might it be the right role for the TAG to ask RDFa core to not proceed until a serious attempt is made to work with 3023bis folks to come to agreement on right way forward.
17:46:19 [jar_]: s/says _/says practically _/
17:46:46 [noah]: I'm somewhat unconvinced that it's out of scope for them, since they clearly want RDFa to be mixable into XML on the Web, and thus usable with application/xml in particular.
17:47:23 [ht]: NM: Anyone else share my concern, that maybe they should slow down
17:47:26 [ht]: HST: +1
17:48:13 [Larry]: should we try to organize a workshop getting people together?
17:48:23 [jar_]: We've had plenty of time to comment on this...
17:48:23 [ht]: JR: If we try to take on the larger goal of working out whether/how to talk about URIs in context, we might be in a position to declare victory, but that will take a while
17:48:39 [ht]: NM: I'm not ready to agree to that larger goal at all
17:48:58 [ht]: JT: We need to let them go ahead and publish, we've kept them waiting too long
17:49:04 [ht]: q+
17:49:24 [ht]: LM: Should we try to get the parties together?
17:49:28 [noah]: ack next
17:49:31 [DKA]: DKA has joined #tagmem
17:49:40 [ht]: HST: I like LM's idea
17:50:40 [noah]: HT: I like Larry's idea. Was going to say "I'm sympathetic to what Jonathan and Jeni have said", and our focus on two words may not have been our finest hour. That said, I don't want them to go to rec without acknowledgign that the current state of specs don't really give them a place to stand.
17:50:45 [noah]: q+
17:50:49 [noah]: ack next
17:51:03 [jar_]: Remember two issues: (1) FYN, (2) the potential collision… they're different. HT just touched on (1), Larry's more on (2)
17:51:23 [Ashok]: Ashok has joined #tagmem
17:51:28 [ht]: s/place to stand/place to stand wrt the architecture of media types and mix-ins/
17:51:46 [jar_]: I wanted to focus on (1) FYN, and defer (2) until later..
17:52:17 [ht]: NM: Waiting forever is bad, but moving ahead in the face of architectural uncertainty is a recipe for problems downstream
17:52:40 [ht]: q+ to get JAR to clarify
17:53:00 [noah]: ack next
17:53:01 [Zakim]: ht, you wanted to get JAR to clarify
17:53:18 [ht]: NM: I am worried that we're on the edge here and elsewhere of just asking people to hold their collective noses and move on
17:53:20 [Larry]: the fragment identifier thing in HTML5 is only half-fixed since Hixie didn't do anything about fragids and scripting in application/xml+xhtml
17:53:53 [noah]: This is an important part of the architecture, and repeatedly saying "yeah, the specs don't work" is very troubling
17:54:22 [noah]: Neither am I convinced that we want to architect this by saying "he who ships the first spec wins"
17:54:36 [ht]: HT: JR, do you mean that if we focus on FYN we can get useful advice to the RDFa Core folks quickly?
17:55:06 [ht]: JR: Yes, I think I could get a menu of four or five modest changes to their specs which the TAG could choose from
17:55:25 [ht]: NM: Separating the two sounds uncontentious
17:55:54 [ht]: NM: But if we only tackle the FYN issue, we better not lose sight of the collision issue
17:56:01 [ht]: NM: How soon?
17:56:13 [ht]: JR: 3rd last call real soon now
17:56:29 [ht]: NM: So no time for a sit-down with 3023bis folks
17:56:33 [Larry]: could we ask them to leave a placeholder in their spec leaving this part open, or at least warning a reader that the issue is open?
17:57:47 [Larry]: q+ to advocate that we ask them to just put in a warning, since we don't have an answer
17:58:21 [jar_]: Suggesting: Ask them to put some language, now, in their doc addressing (1). Easier to fix. Separately, ask them to work on (2) with HTTPbis folks. (Maybe better if that fix goes in 3023bis.)
17:58:53 [ht]: NM: We mostly do what JR suggested, but include in any early communication about [step 1], that we are also concerned about [step 2], which we will want to see action on in due
17:58:59 [jar_]: noah wants the two both raised in the same communication to the WG
17:59:00 [ht]: ... course
17:59:10 [noah]: ack next
17:59:11 [Zakim]: Larry, you wanted to advocate that we ask them to just put in a warning, since we don't have an answer
17:59:43 [ht]: LM: We have an issue where we don't have the answer, where they want to get a spec. out - - can't we get a warning in
17:59:52 [ht]: q+ to ack. violent agreement
17:59:59 [noah]: Still, even a warning will result in content out there on the Web that may or may not be impossible to make legal without special-casing in 3023bis
18:00:01 [jar_]: lm wants a more explicit warning; compare to what's in their current draft which is quite evasive
18:00:13 [noah]: That special casing is likely to break generalized XML processing, I think.
18:00:27 [noah]: Whether the breakage will bother anyone in practice or often, I don't know
18:00:59 [noah]: HT: +1 to JAR quickly giving us a longer list of options
18:01:38 [noah]: HT: and at the same time Jonathan needs to be sure Manu understands we remain concerned about 3023 collision, and feel a resolution is needed eventually
18:01:46 [jar_]: By the way 3023bis is already in conflict with application/xhtml+xml, due to xhtml namespace doc's ref to RDFa … so I think it's 3023 that will have to budge
18:02:21 [ht]: s/options/options for improving the two words wrt FYN/
18:02:42 [ht]: NM: That sounds like we're near consensus
18:02:49 [noah]: on next steps
18:02:59 [ht]: JR: I believe that 3023bis will need to move, given how much RDFa content is out there
18:03:06 [ht]: q+ to say what I said a while ago
18:03:19 [noah]: ACTION-509?
18:03:19 [trackbot]: ACTION-509 -- Jonathan Rees to communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue -- due 2011-09-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:03:19 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/509
18:03:24 [JeniT]: plus 3023bis' problems aren't just about RDFa
18:03:35 [ht]: NM: Is that one OK given today's discussion?
18:03:44 [ht]: JR: Yes
18:03:58 [noah]: ACTION-509 Due 2011-10-18
18:03:59 [trackbot]: ACTION-509 Communicate with RDFa WG regarding documenting the fragid / media type issue due date now 2011-10-18
18:06:00 [noah]: zakim, who is here?
18:06:00 [Zakim]: On the phone I see jar, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra, JeniT, Masinter, noah, ht, DKA
18:06:03 [Zakim]: On IRC I see Ashok, DKA, jar_, noah, Larry, RRSAgent, JeniT, Zakim, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves
18:06:08 [ht]: NM: Peter Linss is the next up to scribe
18:06:16 [ht]: [move this up to admin]
18:06:50 [noah]: q?
18:06:54 [noah]: ack next
18:06:56 [Zakim]: ht, you wanted to ack. violent agreement and to say what I said a while ago
18:07:19 [noah]: JAR agrees to scribe on the 20th if Peter can't
18:07:26 [noah]: Note regrets from Jeni for the 20th
18:08:56 [jar_]: ht asks JAR to Clarify that it's the *semantics* of xpointer that's the major problem.
18:09:02 [ht]: HST: JAR to confirm that the putative pblm with 3023bis is the semantics (that XPOinters identify elements) not the syntax (because there's no conflict with that)
18:09:15 [jar_]: right
18:09:20 [ht]: NM: But what if RDFa moved to get out of XPOinter syntax space with their own semantics
18:09:32 [ht]: ... Then the conflict is with the syntax
18:10:43 [Zakim]: -ht
18:10:59 [jar_]: scribenick: jar_
18:11:17 [noah]: topic: Pending Review Actions
18:11:18 [noah]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/pendingreview
18:11:25 [jar_]: item: Pending review action items
18:11:31 [jar_]: s/item:/topic:/
18:12:02 [noah]: ACTION-566?
18:12:02 [trackbot]: ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:12:02 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566
18:12:48 [jar_]: dka: Changing back to open.
18:12:51 [noah]: Dan will reopen with reasonable date
18:13:00 [noah]: ACTION-603?
18:13:00 [trackbot]: ACTION-603 -- Noah Mendelsohn to mention to Ian to document level of TAG commitment in nomination info -- due 2011-11-01 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:13:00 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/603
18:13:50 [jar_]: noah: 603 overtaken by events
18:14:03 [noah]: close ACTION-603
18:14:03 [trackbot]: ACTION-603 Mention to Ian to document level of TAG commitment in nomination info closed
18:14:11 [noah]: ACTION-608?
18:14:11 [trackbot]: ACTION-608 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule telcon discussion of TAG goals on privacy -- due 2011-10-04 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:14:11 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/608
18:15:27 [Larry]: q+ to talk about setting up a roadmap wiki ?
18:15:36 [noah]: ack next
18:15:37 [Zakim]: Larry, you wanted to talk about setting up a roadmap wiki ?
18:15:45 [jar_]: noah: We had pretty much decided that we don't have any reason to have an open (tracked) privacy action… let's be clear
18:16:24 [jar_]: larry: In discussion it was suggested that the TAG might be helpful by producing a roadmap
18:16:44 [jar_]: … that identifies things that are important but inactive
18:17:18 [jar_]: ashok: We could [also] communicate that we don't see how to take it forward
18:17:35 [jar_]: noah: Wiki?
18:18:36 [jar_]: larry: A one-off for privacy not helpful, but a bigger roadmap that has privacy as one piece would be
18:18:43 [jar_]: noah: Sounds too ambitious
18:20:19 [noah]: I'm not saying too ambitious, I'm saying not making the opportunity cost cut relative to other things.
18:20:29 [noah]: close ACTION-608
18:20:29 [trackbot]: ACTION-608 Schedule telcon discussion of TAG goals on privacy closed
18:20:57 [jar_]: . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work, but unfortunately does not have the resources or ideas to pursue it at the present time.
18:21:11 [jar_]: have at it
18:22:19 [noah]: . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work, but unfortunately doesn't find it practical to free resourcesto pursue it at the present time.
18:22:23 [noah]: . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work, but unfortunately doesn't find it practical to free resources to pursue it at the present time.
18:22:48 [Larry]: hmmmmm
18:23:12 [Larry]: it isn't that it's impractical
18:23:53 [Larry]: we're still open to taking it up again
18:23:54 [DKA]: DKA has joined #tagmem
18:24:13 [jar_]: we're not sure how to be adequately productive ? effective ?
18:24:56 [Larry]: i'd just as soon move on now
18:25:22 [jar_]: . RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work. On consideration we have decided not to put resources on this issue at the present time, but we are open to taking it up again.
18:25:39 [JeniT]: +1
18:25:45 [jar_]: RESOLUTION: The TAG considers privacy to be an important area of work. On consideration we have decided not to put resources on this issue at the present time, but we are open to taking it up again.
18:26:08 [DKA]: action-566?
18:26:08 [trackbot]: ACTION-566 -- Daniel Appelquist to contact Alissa Cooper, organize a future joint discussion on privacy with IAB. -- due 2011-10-11 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:26:08 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/566
18:26:14 [noah]: ACTION-612?
18:26:14 [trackbot]: ACTION-612 -- Noah Mendelsohn to respond to Ian suggesting a BOF but not a breakout on TAG focus, and ask again about dinner. -- due 2011-10-06 -- PENDINGREVIEW
18:26:14 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/612
18:26:38 [noah]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/tag/2011Oct/0003.html
18:26:43 [jar_]: noah: I did send a note to Ian… continuing to discuss
18:27:17 [jar_]: noah: architecture BOF at lunch, or spread ourselves out to other BOFs?
18:27:35 [jar_]: s/architecture/TAG/
18:28:22 [Larry]: i need to bck off on this because it looks like i have a conflict for TPAC wed/thu
18:28:53 [DKA]: +1 to TAG bof.
18:28:56 [Ashok]: -1
18:29:00 [noah]: 0
18:29:04 [Yves]: 0
18:29:13 [noah]: Would kind of prefer to go to other tables, but open to input on the TAG
18:29:21 [jar_]: jar: 0 ;will not be at TPAC
18:29:34 [noah]: close ACTION-612
18:29:34 [trackbot]: ACTION-612 Respond to Ian suggesting a BOF but not a breakout on TAG focus, and ask again about dinner. closed
18:29:48 [noah]: ACTION Noah with Dan to figure out whether we want a TAG bof at TPAC
18:29:49 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-621 - With Dan to figure out whether we want a TAG bof at TPAC [on Noah Mendelsohn - due 2011-10-20].
18:31:17 [jar_]: ashok: Email thread starting with Manu's note is sort of related to earlier topic of RDFa, what are we thinking of doing about that?
18:32:07 [jar_]: jar_: Let's let it percolate through email for a bit
18:32:34 [jar_]: ashok: Then take it up at the F2F?
18:32:59 [jar_]: … (at TPAC)
18:33:27 [jar_]: noah: Start thinking about what you would like scheduled at the TPAC F2F
18:33:53 [jar_]: ADJOURNED
18:33:57 [Zakim]: -noah
18:33:58 [Zakim]: -Yves
18:33:58 [Zakim]: -DKA
18:33:59 [Zakim]: -JeniT
18:34:03 [Zakim]: -jar
18:34:06 [Zakim]: -Ashok_Malhotra
18:34:08 [Zakim]: -Masinter
18:34:08 [jar_]: rrsagent, make logs public
18:34:09 [Zakim]: TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has ended
18:34:10 [Zakim]: Attendees were jar, Yves, Ashok_Malhotra, Masinter, JeniT, +47.74.811.aaaa, ht, noah, DKA
18:34:14 [jar_]: rrsagent, pointer
18:34:14 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-tagmem-irc#T18-34-14
20:32:47 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #tagmem