16:50:15 RRSAgent has joined #tagmem 16:50:15 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/26-tagmem-irc 16:50:17 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:50:17 Zakim has joined #tagmem 16:50:19 Zakim, this will be TAG 16:50:19 ok, trackbot; I see TAG_Weekly()1:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes 16:50:20 Meeting: Technical Architecture Group Teleconference 16:50:20 Date: 26 April 2012 16:50:27 Chair: Noah 16:50:31 Scribe: Robin 16:50:35 ScribeNick: darobin 16:59:54 noah has joined #tagmem 16:59:59 jar has joined #tagmem 17:00:04 TAG_Weekly()1:00PM has now started 17:00:12 +??P1 17:00:17 Zakim, ??P1 is me 17:00:17 +darobin; got it 17:00:26 Ashok has joined #tagmem 17:00:44 +jar 17:00:59 +??P0 17:01:46 +Noah_Mendelsohn 17:02:31 Zakim, mute noah 17:02:31 Noah_Mendelsohn should now be muted 17:02:59 unmute noah 17:03:07 Zakim, unmute noah 17:03:07 Noah_Mendelsohn should no longer be muted 17:03:11 +Ashok_Malhotra 17:03:16 s/unmute noah/ 17:03:46 zakim, who is here? 17:03:46 On the phone I see darobin (muted), jar, ht (muted), Noah_Mendelsohn, Ashok_Malhotra 17:03:48 On IRC I see Ashok, jar, noah, Zakim, RRSAgent, darobin, JeniT, ht, plinss, trackbot, Yves 17:04:15 +??P8 17:04:41 Regrets: Peter, Larry 17:04:58 Regrets probably on the 10th 17:05:01 NM: probable regrets on the 10th 17:05:06 Probable future regrets 10th from me too 17:05:28 Jeni to scribe next week confirmed 17:05:30 NM: Jeni, can you scribe next week? 17:05:33 JT: yes 17:05:36 Topic: Approve minutes of prior meeting(s) 17:05:46 f2f minutes http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda 17:05:47 F2F: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda 17:06:00 NM: Objections? 17:06:02 [none] 17:06:04 ack ht 17:06:06 +1 approve 17:06:23 HT: I note that there are still a bunch of editorial red marks in my sections 17:06:39 ... people haven't gone back and made the necessary changes — none of them are serious 17:06:44 ... not objecting to approval 17:06:44 e.g. [Who said this? RB, tutti to check] 17:06:48 +Yves 17:06:56 e.g. [Who said this? RB, tutti to check. JAR guesses Dom] 17:07:06 RESOLUTION: Minutes from the f2f are approved 17:07:20 Minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/02-agenda 17:07:29 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/12-minutes -> 12/04 minutes 17:07:30 Minutes of 12 April: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/12-minutes 17:07:48 NM: freshly arrived, people can ask for time 17:07:52 ... objections? 17:07:56 [none] 17:07:59 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/12-minutes 17:08:03 RESOLUTION: Minutes from the 12/04 are approved 17:08:12 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes -> 19/04 minutes 17:08:19 NM: look good to me 17:08:29 RESOLUTION: Minutes from the 19/04 are approved 17:08:52 Topic: Administrativia 17:09:13 NM: I believe that people need more discussion on XML-ER, so it's put to you 17:09:20 ... and Robin has asked about election procedures 17:09:46 ... hearing no changes to the agenda 17:09:47 ACTION-687? 17:09:47 ACTION-687 -- Noah Mendelsohn to look for opportunities to discuss putting forward something to the AB about the Process and the failed reference from REC drafts to expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope creep etc. -- due 2012-05-01 -- OPEN 17:09:47 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687 17:10:10 Proposal e-mail: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/04/19-minutes 17:10:14 NM: seemed convoluted, sent email, made a proposal based on responses 17:10:19 Proposal e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0185.html 17:11:14 NM: can send a note to the AB without further discussion 17:11:41 ACTION-687? 17:11:41 ACTION-687 -- Noah Mendelsohn to look for opportunities to discuss putting forward something to the AB about the Process and the failed reference from REC drafts to expired RFCs as a side-effect of scope creep etc. -- due 2012-05-01 -- OPEN 17:11:41 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/687 17:11:44 JAR: believe further iteration is needed 17:12:01 NM: would like to handle this in email 17:12:15 the iteration might lead to a decision to do nothing, that would be ok 17:12:42 NM: some time ago the TAG agreed that the work on HTML Data had been successfully completed 17:12:50 ... I was tasked with recording that in the product page 17:13:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0148.html 17:14:16 On 18 January: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2012/01/19-minutes.html#item05 17:14:22 RESOLUTION: The draft product page at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/htmldata.html is agreed as the basis on which the TAG closes out it's work on Microdata/RDFa coordination 17:14:27 NM: this email points out that on 20120119 we resolved the above 17:14:52 NM: my view was the TAG passed a resolution, I took an action, announced it, and propose to close 17:15:14 ... but today, LM emailed about it 17:15:45 Larry asks to take this to Rec: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0209.html 17:16:14 JT, AM: Robin pushed back 17:16:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0209.html 17:16:41 RB: push back was on XML, not HTML Data 17:17:21 YL: I think it would be difficult for the TAG to have the cycles to move everything to REC 17:17:30 ... we know that there's a good start in both cases 17:17:37 ... it's fine for the TAG to say it did its share 17:17:46 ... without necessarily push to REC 17:18:07 ... pushing these documents to REC can be done later, I think that closing the action and the product is in order 17:18:27 JT: in the HTML Data work there were two notes produced with the intent that they could be turned into something more solid 17:18:35 ... especially the microdata to RDF conversion 17:18:42 NM: TAG needs to be involved? 17:18:55 JT: not necessarily directly, but W3C needs to find a good home for it 17:19:22 NM: action to check up on whether W3C is doing the right thing there, possibly in a few months? 17:19:27 close ACTION-664 17:19:27 ACTION-664 Announce completion of TAG work on Microdata/RDFa as recorded in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/products/htmldata.html and to finalize the product page and associated links closed 17:20:00 ACTION: Jeni to check that W3C has found a good home for the output of the HTML Data TF, especially microdata/RDF conversion - due 2012-10-26 17:20:00 Created ACTION-699 - check that W3C has found a good home for the output of the HTML Data TF, especially microdata/RDF conversion [on Jeni Tennison - due 2012-10-26]. 17:20:25 NM: Larry can send further comments 17:21:25 Noah: Actually, what I said was: I think that's an appropriate resolution in the particular case of Microdata/RDFa. If Larry (or anyone) wants to ask the TAG to consider whether, in general, more of our work should be REC-track, that would be a separate discussion for them to request. 17:21:51 Topic: XML-ER 17:21:58 ACTION-656? 17:21:58 ACTION-656 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of possibly getting W3C to invest in technologies for liberal XML processing (e.g. XML5) -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:21:58 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/656 17:22:15 NM: JT framed the proposal 17:22:27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0169.html 17:22:49 NM: LM specifically asked that the TAG's work on HTML/XML should go on the Rec track 17:23:12 ... would like not to discuss that now, we will see Norm in June, and can discuss in preparation for that 17:23:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0169.html 17:23:25 ... would like to focus on XML-ER CG, goals, use cases, etc. 17:23:59 JT: HT asked me to go through the minutes from f2f and pull out areas that we had raised as concerns 17:24:03 ... put those in email 17:24:13 ... I think that we should engage positively with the XML-ER CG 17:24:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0169.html 17:24:26 ... looking perhaps to drop them an email suggesting changes in their charter 17:24:32 http://www.w3.org/community/xml-er/wiki/Charter 17:24:35 ... focusing on what we would say if we spoke to them 17:24:48 ... concern from the minutes are listed in my email, refer to that 17:24:52 Concerns raised by TAG members during the F2F discussion included: 17:24:52 * restricting XML-ER processing to non-safety-critical applications 17:24:52 * ensuring that any error recovery is reported noisily 17:24:57 * error recovery causing a race to the bottom and evolutionary drift 17:24:57 * potential security problems with the same file being interpreted in different ways by different processors 17:24:57 * interactions with media-type sniffing 17:25:11 ... if I were to communicate with them, I would need help to provide more detail on some of the concerns 17:25:33 NM: some question in my mind as to what the level of interest the TAG has in dealing with this 17:25:38 XML-ER if it exists should have its own media type 17:25:46 ... fine for me to dive in, but want to make sure that people are really interested 17:25:52 ... we don't owe it to anybody to do more 17:26:16 RB: Would it be simpler if people would bring concerns directly to the community group? 17:26:39 ht_home has joined #tagmem 17:26:40 +1 17:27:01 YL: some concerns in JT's email are already in the charter 17:27:06 q+ ht to argue for TAG involvement to continue 17:27:25 "Backwards compatible with XML 1.0." requires error reporting 17:27:35 q+ to suggest that the marking of fixed up XML isn't quite all you might want re critical applications 17:27:36 ... critical apps would simply reject ER, backwards compat is taken into account 17:27:49 ack next 17:27:51 ht, you wanted to argue for TAG involvement to continue 17:27:51 ... I agree with RB that if there are specific issues they can be taken directly to the CG 17:28:17 HT: I think that this is close enough to a number of essential architectural issues that I don't want to leave it to just CG discussiojn 17:28:23 ... we should discuss this as the TAG 17:28:36 Henry, can you give an example of something the tag >might< want to say? 17:28:36 ... I'm sufficiently concerned about this at the architectural level that I want to keep it on our agenda 17:28:47 ... I'm not saying that we should be tossing bombs over the parapet to them 17:28:54 To motivate your "outlier" view that we keep it on the table 17:29:25 JAR: I agree with that, it seems that we've been talking about extension points and the such for years and we're close to that now 17:29:36 NM: some in the group seem to think we can just interact with the CG 17:29:44 ... henry would like to keep it 17:29:59 ... JAR thinks it's useful to discuss 17:30:04 maybe 'closer' rather than 'close' 17:30:11 ... HT do you have examples of TAG level concern 17:30:34 HT: several points in the discussion where JT|RB said "we agree, I expect it will turn out that way" 17:30:41 ... but if it doesn't, we have a problem 17:30:48 ... I would like to capture and ensure those 17:30:50 ack next 17:30:51 noah, you wanted to suggest that the marking of fixed up XML isn't quite all you might want re critical applications 17:31:18 NM: YL asserted that processing critical applications is covered by the charter 17:31:28 ... I don't think that's the only way of looking at it 17:31:49 ... the scope is set, but if software is confused it will have a flag 17:31:54 -darobin 17:32:01 it's w community group, not a working group 17:32:08 ScribeNick: JeniT 17:32:49 +??P1 17:32:56 Zakim, ??P1 is me 17:32:56 +darobin; got it 17:33:04 ScribeNick: darobin 17:33:29 q? 17:34:32 NM: Yves makes the case that, because the charter mandates a warning on fixed up output, we're OK on the "critical apps" front. Not necessarily. There's still reason to question whether the charter should have mandated a style of fixup that would have been suitable for a broader range of applications... 17:34:55 NM: Of course, Anne's done a wonderful service by moving ahead to meet what he (and others) see as the goals, and we'd lose that if the goals changed a lot. 17:34:56 q+ to note that it's not fixup 17:34:57 q? 17:35:01 ack next 17:35:31 YL: first I wanted to reply to HT that having people contributing to the CG directly is not incompatible with finding issues and working on those 17:35:41 ... I think it will be faster if people comment directly to the CG 17:36:03 ... 2nd point is that it's a CG, it's not tasked to produce a Rec, I wouldn't worry too much about small details 17:36:12 wiki has no pointer to mailing list 17:36:32 jar, the home page for the CG has the link on the left 17:36:32 I'm not saying what the WG is doing is wrong or bad. I'm saying that the goals weren't debated as broadly as we do for some other work. 17:36:36 ... in the charter and such — I think the fact they added that errors are surfaced at the application level is a sign that they want to tackle applications possibly rejecting content 17:36:43 In practice, going down this path is probably the right thing for now. 17:36:47 ... taking into account security-critical applications 17:36:58 q+ to argue for opt-in, not opt-out 17:37:01 ... but I thikn it's a good indication, and we can trust the process of the CG 17:37:03 ... and monitor it 17:37:05 http://www.w3.org/community/xml-er/ 17:37:09 ack me 17:37:11 darobin, you wanted to note that it's not fixup 17:37:16 Right Robin...but the point you're not addressing is that the fixups themselves are designed for interactive browser applications. 17:37:48 RB: I think it will be faster to bring concerns to the CG directly. It's a CG, not a WG. Doesn't formally need a charter. That was done to be a helpful point of reference. 17:38:10 q+ 17:38:15 RB: It's not aimed at "error recovery" it's designed to take any input and produce a parse. Not sure the concerns about critical apps apply 17:38:29 I note that the group is titled XML-ER 17:38:50 RB: XML-ER naming is the result of my bad joke, now regretted. 17:38:52 q? 17:38:54 ack next 17:38:56 ht, you wanted to argue for opt-in, not opt-out 17:39:19 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-er/ 17:39:21 HT: maybe RB did just say so, but thanks for reminding us that this is not a WG which changes the dynamic 17:39:32 ... the charter is just a convenience and isn't binding 17:39:37 ... but it's an indication of direction 17:40:08 ... we may be headed towards a situation in which apps can opt-out of ER 17:40:26 ... but I'm not sure I want it that way, I think I want it opt-in 17:40:31 q? 17:40:40 ... nobody is ever going to see fixed up output unless they take steps to 17:40:45 ... it shouldn't be the default 17:41:03 JAR: isn't that somethign that different processors e.g. browsers might default differently 17:41:06 ... ? 17:41:15 wasn't me saying that 17:41:21 ack next 17:41:22 HT: I don't think so, but we'll have to see how it develops 17:41:26 q? 17:41:31 s/JAR/NM/ 17:41:44 AM: really any inpuyt? 17:41:46 This is very interesting… very similar to sniffing 17:41:55 RB: yes 17:42:07 HT: he did, which is reasonable so long as it's deterministic 17:42:19 NM: this is similar to HTML5 where it does that 17:42:39 -Ashok_Malhotra 17:42:40 ... this can include some complex parsers for HTML 17:42:55 ... but I don't think that this is reasonable for e.g. importing to a DB 17:43:03 ... but you can imagine that some fixups are low-risk 17:43:16 ... e.g. upper/lowercase 17:43:25 JAR: that doesn't sound good for XML 17:43:29 NM: right 17:43:48 JAR: XML assigns errors to some strings 17:43:53 ... this is incompatible with XML 17:43:57 +Ashok_Malhotra 17:44:09 NM: this will operate successfully with a lot of apps that expect XML 17:44:20 ... we're talking about when this is appropriate 17:44:31 -Ashok_Malhotra 17:44:31 ... do I ever want to import broken XML to XML tooling? 17:44:35 q? 17:44:47 q? 17:44:56 JAR: this is exactly the same question about authoritative metadata and sniffing 17:45:07 +Ashok_Malhotra 17:45:13 NM: there's a move in teh community that XML is not successful on the Web because it is too strict 17:45:32 ... XML-ER builds a tree for "broken" content 17:45:32 q? 17:45:45 JAR: not arguing the merits, the TAG has been here several times 17:45:56 ... why would we say something different? 17:46:18 NM: the community is asserting that XML, which is important to W3C, is having far more limited impact than we wanted 17:46:37 ... trying to be helpful to a broader range of things that people are doing 17:46:46 q? 17:46:47 ... without crashing airplanes 17:47:06 q+ to ask what the architectural locus of the result will be 17:47:09 JAR: just saying that we shouldn't take this in isolation, should use the context of authoritative metadata 17:47:19 ack ht 17:47:20 ack next 17:47:20 ht, you wanted to ask what the architectural locus of the result will be 17:48:00 HT: JAR's question made me realise that I'd like to hear how this sits with the notion of media type 17:48:29 ... as JAR pointed out, the XML spec says that a string of characters which doesn't satisfy the condition for WF 17:48:35 ... is not XML, it's just characters 17:48:40 ... it's not XML with errors 17:48:47 ... delicate but relevant point 17:49:10 ... people would be comfortable with saying "this is Fortran with a bug", but people don't say that about XML 17:49:29 q? 17:49:31 q+ 17:49:35 NM: what usually happens is that for programming languages, the spec is strict but they can resync 17:49:54 HT: I deny that — they define sync points so that the compiler can give errors 17:50:27 ... main point is where does this fit in the space that we know about in terms of media types 17:50:41 ... content type but also accept headers 17:51:07 ... unlike text/html which is being redefined, the jury's still out on what they say 17:51:21 ... but they might say that any content might legitimately be served as text/html 17:51:49 ... several people have made clear that the goal of the XML-ER is not to redefine the application/xml media type 17:51:56 I hope they don't say that any content is validly served as text/html. I hope/expect they will make a massive application of Postel's law, and say legally served content MUST validate, but clients may be liberal in what they process. 17:52:13 RB: I think the media type question is very much open in the CG. 17:52:25 s/that the goal/that they hope the goal/ 17:52:26 I think Henry was talking about the likely registration of text/html 17:52:32 Not anything to do with the CG 17:52:44 RB: The question was how to make XML usable in various situations without breaking things. 17:53:48 RB: Nobody has yet looked in detail at whether to recommend use of application/xml, which would be a significant change the registrarion 17:53:49 NM: also a question about whether text/html sets a precedent 17:53:56 s/set/will set/ 17:54:02 q? 17:54:05 HT: we're still waiting on that one, but we'll have to look at it 17:54:10 ack mext 17:54:15 ack next 17:54:35 JAR: regardless of what the CG decides to do, this is a very interesting question, I see parallels with other issues 17:54:39 ... we should keep this going 17:54:45 We need a Postel's Law issue 17:54:56 ... maybe we should wait until someone has something to say about it 17:54:59 ... but shouldn't close 17:55:05 +1 on a Postel issue 17:55:08 +1 17:55:08 ACTION-696? 17:55:08 ACTION-696 -- Jeni Tennison to frame discussion of XML-ER goals and use cases -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:55:08 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/696 17:55:18 ACTION-656? 17:55:18 ACTION-656 -- Noah Mendelsohn to schedule discussion of possibly getting W3C to invest in technologies for liberal XML processing (e.g. XML5) -- due 2012-04-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:55:18 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/656 17:55:45 NM: this action dates from before the CG, my work is done 17:55:50 ... close both? 17:56:00 ... to keep this on the table, what's the next step? 17:56:08 JAR: someone to think about this 17:56:15 ... I see big parallels with httpRange-14 17:56:28 NM: I was hoping you wouldn't say that 17:56:45 HT: I agree with JAR, and agree it's going to be hard to find something to say about this 17:56:52 issue-20? 17:56:52 ISSUE-20 -- What should specifications say about error handling? -- open 17:56:52 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/20 17:57:08 ... we have an issue similar to hr14 which keeps coming up: is Postel's Law of any use? 17:57:15 ... if not, should we write an obit? 17:57:24 ... if it is, can we state so? 17:57:42 ... if we have something different what's the delta? 17:57:50 NM: I'm not sure that's as fraught as hr14 17:58:00 Scribe notes famous last words 17:58:11 NM: seems close to authoritative metadata indeed 17:58:34 ... Postel's law is out there to advocate in favour of robustness over safety 17:58:47 ... trying to get to the ongoing effort about HTML/XML unification 17:59:10 ... tempting for me to say that the bits that are specifically about XML should go to that TF, and anyone is welcome to do that 17:59:33 ... HT is saying that we could invest in the deeper quesiotn of Postel's Law and its relationship with authoritative metadata 17:59:45 ... anyone want to do the work? 17:59:55 HT: want to yes, but can is a different question 18:00:04 ditto 18:00:12 NM: this is significant if done well, but we need commitment 18:01:12 close ACTION-696? 18:01:19 close ACTION-696 18:01:19 ACTION-696 frame discussion of XML-ER goals and use cases closed 18:01:24 close ACTION-656 18:01:24 ACTION-656 Schedule discussion of possibly getting W3C to invest in technologies for liberal XML processing (e.g. XML5) closed 18:01:26 NM: if someone wants to bring this up again, I'll be sympathetic so long as they can point out what's changed 18:01:57 NM: To sum up, the XML-specific part of this may come up again in the context of the HTML/XML unification effort, which is ongoing. 18:02:18 NM: Otherwise, asking to reopen focus on XML-ER is in orde >if< someone steps up to move it forward and do real useful work on it. 18:02:45 s/in orde/in order/ 18:03:01 error handling and extension points are very closely related 18:03:08 NM: Likewise, starting a major effort on the tension between authoritative metadata and Postel's law sounds very cool ( to the chair anyway ), but only if someone is ready to do months of work on it. 18:03:10 and versioning! 18:03:29 Topic: TAG Election Procedures 18:03:41 NM: framing from the chair 18:03:59 ... number of emails flying in various quarters about changing the TAG and all that 18:04:11 ... before Sophia I asked if we wanted to talk about that, but it was rejected 18:04:16 HT: for discussion at the f2f 18:04:34 NM: it may be better to talk of this f2f though, can have lunch discussions and the such 18:04:54 ... first of all, it's been noted several times that changes to the process are not things that we drive 18:04:59 ... but we can ask for them 18:05:09 ... received objections to having this discussion at all 18:05:21 ... so for this afternoon, the scope is strictly about election procedures 18:05:32 ... if people have other suggestions, please send them in email 18:05:43 ... these are time-consuming so please set the bar high 18:05:54 q+ to agree on the bad effects of tactical voting in TAG elections 18:06:05 ... I get nervous when we get too far in proposals for change without being clear about what we are trying to change 18:06:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0105.html 18:06:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Apr/0105.html 18:07:21 RB: I sent some feedback to the member list, felt encouraged by the response, so wanted to bring it forward for wider discussion. These are more to practice, rather than formal process. 18:07:29 RB: E.g. to vote counting 18:07:58 (Hmm...I thought the counting procedure was at least implicitly part of the process) 18:08:02 RB: Ideas: 18:08:14 RB: 1) Make nominee list public (don't think it is) 18:08:57 s/These are more to practice, rather than formal process./Two of these are just to practice, vote counting is a change to process./ 18:09:05 RB: 2) Avoid tactical voting, probably as embodied in WBS (to avoid tactical voting...perceive that members avoid casting second vote when first choice is at risk) 18:09:34 q? 18:09:37 q+ 18:09:38 RB: 3) Have a public mailing list on which people can discuss the election with the candidates, get answers from the candidates. 18:09:58 I think the recommendation is to use preferential voting -- i.e. first, second, etc. 18:10:03 HT: I strongly endorse the change to Process to avoid tactical voting 18:10:23 ... I'm conscious that it's awkward to say so 18:10:38 ... but I will say that in every election I have voted in I have voted only for myself 18:10:45 ... and I think that's broken 18:11:19 q? 18:11:23 ack next 18:11:24 ht, you wanted to agree on the bad effects of tactical voting in TAG elections 18:11:26 ack next 18:11:33 s/election I have voted/election I have stood/ 18:11:41 s/but I will say that in every election I have voted in I have voted only for myself/but I will say that in every election in which I stood I have voted only for myself 18:12:01 JAR: I think that we need to look at the broader problem and wonder if election reform will solve that 18:12:23 ... the problem is that we want abilities we don't have 18:12:27 ... I don't think that this solves that 18:12:35 q+ to point out that this helps 18:12:48 q? 18:12:49 Oh yes, and I meant to say contra LM in email that it's precisely when the number of candidates is just larger than the number of seats that tactical voting is most tempting 18:12:51 NM: I don't want to pull in the entire scope of changing the TAG 18:12:53 ack me 18:12:53 q+ 18:12:55 darobin, you wanted to point out that this helps 18:13:17 the problem is getting constituencies represented, and getting expertise in areas where we're weak 18:13:35 -ht 18:14:06 q? 18:14:08 q+ 18:14:31 RB: I've spoken to people who have wanted to run, but didn't bother because they didn't feel they had a chance of winning 18:14:37 RB: Don't focus just on counting. Right now, people who aren't well known in the AC don't run, because they perceive that without name recognition in the AC they can't win 18:14:39 ack nesxt 18:14:42 ack next 18:15:03 NM: two or three separate things that may be in contradiction 18:15:18 ... one is that I think that RB is making good points in isolation 18:15:28 ... tactical voting bad, people telling their story good 18:15:46 ... two, be careful. If you look at who's running, there are some issues that aren't being discussed here 18:16:18 ... as chair I feel tension between what we need to deliver and the notion that people put themselves to run 18:16:31 ... but ACs don't ask if people can write 18:16:45 ... but writing skills are really important for the TAG 18:16:52