13:29:05 RRSAgent has joined #rd 13:29:05 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rd-irc 13:29:07 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:29:09 Zakim, this will be 7394 13:29:09 ok, trackbot; I see WAI_RDWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 13:29:10 Meeting: Research and Development Working Group Teleconference 13:29:10 Date: 23 May 2012 13:29:18 Chair: Harper_Simon 13:30:07 zakim, clear agenda 13:30:07 agenda cleared 13:30:22 WAI_RDWG()9:30AM has now started 13:30:29 +??P6 13:30:35 zakim, ??P6 is me 13:30:35 +vivienne; got it 13:30:45 zakim, mute me 13:30:45 sorry, vivienne, muting is not permitted when only one person is present 13:30:48 zakim, please clear the agenda 13:30:48 agenda cleared 13:30:54 zakim, agenda? 13:30:54 I see nothing on the agenda 13:31:15 +Shadi 13:31:32 Agenda+ Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments) 13:31:32 Agenda+ Mobile Topic Update [Yeliz, Peter, Simon] 13:31:33 Agenda+ Current W3C Note Status [Simon] | Survey - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-Metrics/ | Title - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0034.html 13:31:33 Agenda+ Topic 3 Text Customization and Easy-to-Read - Online Symposia [Shawn] | Pre-Call - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Topic_3_pre-call | Comments - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0033.html 13:31:33 Agenda+ Timelines / Schedule to 30th June 2013 [Simon] 13:31:35 Agenda+ Issues and Actions (Standing Item): https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/tracker/ 13:31:38 Agenda+ Any Other Business (Standing Item) 13:31:47 zakim, save agenda 13:31:56 ok, sharper, the agenda has been written to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rd-agenda.rdf 13:31:57 zakim, agenda? 13:31:58 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 13:31:58 1. Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments) [from sharper] 13:31:58 2. Mobile Topic Update [from Yeliz, Peter, Simon via sharper] 13:31:58 3. Current W3C Note Status [Simon] | Survey - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-Metrics/ | Title - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0034.html [from 13:31:58 ... sharper] 13:32:00 4. Topic 3 Text Customization and Easy-to-Read - Online Symposia [Shawn] | Pre-Call - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Topic_3_pre-call | Comments - 13:32:03 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0033.html [from sharper] 13:32:04 5. Timelines / Schedule to 30th June 2013 [from Simon via sharper] 13:32:06 6. Issues and Actions (Standing Item): https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/tracker/ [from sharper] 13:32:09 7. Any Other Business (Standing Item) [from sharper] 13:32:29 Yehya has joined #rd 13:32:45 zakim, take up item 1 13:32:45 agendum 1. "Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments)" taken up [from sharper] 13:33:03 regrets+ Miesenberge_Klaus 13:33:12 regrets+ O'Connor_Joshue 13:33:22 regrets+ Brajnik_Giorgio 13:33:33 +Shawn 13:33:33 rrsagent, make logs public 13:33:33 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:33:33 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rd-minutes.html sharper 13:33:46 +Klaus/Johannes/Thomas 13:33:47 zakim, code? 13:33:47 the conference code is 7394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), sharper 13:34:18 markel has joined #rd 13:34:27 +??P15 13:34:34 zakim, ??P15 is sharper 13:34:34 +sharper; got it 13:34:53 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:34:53 On the phone I see vivienne, Shadi, Shawn, Klaus/Johannes/Thomas, sharper 13:35:06 Klaus/Johannes/Thomas is Yehya 13:35:14 +??P16 13:35:34 zakim, ??P16 is markel 13:35:34 +markel; got it 13:35:35 zakim, ?? is Markel 13:35:36 sorry, shadi, I do not recognize a party named '??' 13:35:54 scribe: Vivienne 13:36:02 zakim, mute me 13:36:02 Shadi should now be muted 13:36:09 zakim, mute me 13:36:09 vivienne should now be muted 13:36:34 shawn has joined #rd 13:36:40 ack me 13:36:50 zakim, agenda? 13:36:50 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 13:36:52 1. Welcome & Logistics (Regrets, Agenda Requests, Comments) [from sharper] 13:36:52 2. Mobile Topic Update [from Yeliz, Peter, Simon via sharper] 13:36:52 3. Current W3C Note Status [Simon] | Survey - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-Metrics/ | Title - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0034.html [from 13:36:52 ... sharper] 13:36:54 4. Topic 3 Text Customization and Easy-to-Read - Online Symposia [Shawn] | Pre-Call - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Topic_3_pre-call | Comments - 13:36:55 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0033.html [from sharper] 13:36:57 5. Timelines / Schedule to 30th June 2013 [from Simon via sharper] 13:36:59 6. Issues and Actions (Standing Item): https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/tracker/ [from sharper] 13:37:02 7. Any Other Business (Standing Item) [from sharper] 13:37:08 zakim, mute me 13:37:08 vivienne should now be muted 13:37:24 ack me 13:37:26 zakim, take up next 13:37:26 agendum 2. "Mobile Topic Update" taken up [from Yeliz, Peter, Simon] 13:37:37 +??P17 13:37:45 zakim, mukte me 13:37:45 I don't understand 'mukte me', vivienne 13:37:48 zakim, mue me 13:37:48 I don't understand 'mue me', vivienne 13:37:53 zakim, mute me 13:37:53 vivienne should now be muted 13:37:57 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:37:57 On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Shadi (muted), Shawn (muted), Klaus/Johannes/Thomas, sharper, markel, ??P17 13:38:05 SH: reviews all received back now 13:38:14 yeliz has joined #rd 13:38:34 SH: 3 editors assigned as advocates for the papers. We must now read them and discuss them next week. 13:38:39 zakim, ??p17 is probably Yeliz 13:38:39 +Yeliz?; got it 13:38:55 zakim, ??P17 is yeliz 13:38:55 I already had ??P17 as Yeliz?, yeliz 13:38:58 SH: we need to decide whether to read the papers or for the editors to take care of it 13:38:59 q+ 13:39:02 ack me 13:39:04 ack sh 13:39:04 zakim, mute yeliz 13:39:05 Yeliz? should now be muted 13:39:06 I'm happy for the editors to take it 13:39:22 Shawn: what about the scientific committee's reviews 13:39:41 SH: scientific committee have already given us that in the reviews, although most of them should be accepted 13:40:08 ack me 13:40:09 q+ 13:40:14 I'm happy with that 13:40:16 ack me 13:41:21 sh: editors will then look at the reviews of the scientific committee and then based on the advocates, we invite the changes based on the reviews and accept/reject the papers based on what the advocates decide. We also ask the scientific committee for their thoughts as well. 13:41:47 sh: we have only 6, so it's not as much problem as if there were 20 and we had to trim it down 13:42:21 SA: the decision for acceptance would be only the editors, or the scientific committee? 13:42:32 SH: based on the reviews of the scientific committee 13:43:07 [ Shawn thinks the decision for acceptance should be reviewed by the entire Scientific Committee ] 13:43:08 SH: doing a review of each paper should give us a consensus and we should probably then accept it 13:43:28 SA: I would prefer that the decision for acceptance should come from the scientific committee as a whole, not the editors 13:43:36 SH: breaks the model for a standard conference 13:43:40 q+ 13:43:42 SH: other thoughts? 13:44:02 ack ma 13:44:03 q+ to say option to review, but not requirement to review 13:44:17 MV: if the scientific committee has to be involved in the last decision it involves them to have to read all of the papers. It is more democratic for the editors to make a decision based on our reviews 13:44:17 ack me 13:44:17 shawn, you wanted to say option to review, but not requirement to review 13:44:18 I agree withMarkel 13:45:01 Shawn: think that W3C position as a broad-review org. it would be wise to have the option for review, but not necessarily the requirement for review. Give the SC the option to review but not the requirement 13:45:17 SH: editors can make a recommendation and would allow a discussion 13:45:46 q+ 13:45:46 SH: seems strange to have to ask the SC to accept or not when we've already had 2 recommendations to accept and it's backed up by the editors 13:46:51 Shawn: realistically after the formal review, the editor's recommendations, and the suggestions for accept/rejection, the SC will look at the list and make a decision on how they feel about it. They may have a reason to want to look at some of the papers. 13:47:09 Shawn: SC will probably agree, but should have the opportunity 13:47:14 ack me 13:47:15 SH: other thoughts? 13:48:03 SA: think it's the process we used last time. The symposium chair prepares a list (excel sheet) where the papers are listed and the accept/rejection are visible to the SC and there is some discussion available. 13:48:11 SA: felt it worked well last time 13:48:21 SH: it wasn't the scientific committee - it was the core members 13:48:46 SA: only the scientific committee people participated on the final call 13:49:03 I wasn't on the call either, so it must have been just the SC 13:49:03 s/on the final call/on the calls 13:49:11 zakim, unmute yeliz 13:49:11 Yeliz? should no longer be muted 13:49:18 zakim, q+ 13:49:18 I see yeliz on the speaker queue 13:49:25 ack yel 13:50:12 Yeliz: think it's fine for the editors to create an overview and it can be discussed with the SC members. What happens if not all the SC members can join the call - do we have to get other members? This time we have SC members who aren't in RDWG. 13:50:13 zakim, mute me 13:50:13 Shadi should now be muted 13:50:14 zakim, mute yeliz 13:50:14 Yeliz? should now be muted 13:50:38 so all SC members will become advocates? 13:50:50 SH: we should make use of the Open Conf. system to make the papers available anon. to the SC members so we can open it up. Open for discussion - maybe a week to see if there are problems 13:50:53 [ shawn thinks committee should be *invited* to participate in call to discuss, but do not have to. and also, that there is not a call to discuss unless needed ] 13:51:04 zakim, unmute yeliz 13:51:04 Yeliz? should no longer be muted 13:51:22 Shawn: that's good - if there are no concerns there doesn't need to be a call to discuss 13:51:30 Yeliz: are all SC then advocates? 13:52:01 Yeliz: think this is a good idea. A call will not be necessary if they all agree, or if they can work it out in discussions between themselves 13:52:12 Yeliz: we then document this for the upcoming seminar 13:52:16 zakim, mute yeliz 13:52:16 Yeliz? should now be muted 13:52:28 SH: seems to be sorted. 13:52:59 Resolution: advocates make a recommendation based on the SC members and then open it for discussion to the SC members and then we report back to the main group 13:53:02 +1 13:53:06 +1 13:53:06 +1 13:53:07 zakim, Klaus/Johannes/Thomas is Yehya 13:53:07 +Yehya; got it 13:53:11 +1 13:53:12 +1 13:53:28 RESOLUTION: advocates (Editors) make recommendations, provide to SciCommittee, who have one week to review and comment 13:53:31 zakim, close item 13:53:31 I don't understand 'close item', vivienne 13:53:41 zakim, close item 2 13:53:41 agendum 2, Mobile Topic Update, closed 13:53:42 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 13:53:42 3. Current W3C Note Status [Simon] | Survey - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-Metrics/ | Title - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0034.html [from 13:53:42 ... sharper] 13:53:48 ack me 13:53:52 zakim, mute me 13:53:52 Shadi should now be muted 13:53:56 zakim, take up item 3 13:53:56 agendum 3. "Current W3C Note Status [Simon] | Survey - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-Metrics/ | Title - 13:53:59 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0034.html" taken up [from sharper] 13:54:35 https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-Metrics/results 13:54:38 sh: survey and the title question. Select the survey URL and see the results on the right hand side. 13:55:41 SH: 7 people support, 2 have comments - citation, couple of edits, Chaals - edits sent to Shadi 13:55:50 SH: all think it's good to publish after editorial notes 13:55:52 I haven't filled in the form 13:56:00 but count me as "publish as it is" 13:56:27 ack me 13:57:07 SA: they seem all editorial, so it's good to have the editorial review. Maybe some of the others the editors will want to bring back. 13:57:34 SH: there were emails about the title - have choice Research Report or Research note - 13:57:40 [/me asking chaals to archive these comments publicly btw] 13:57:45 SH: need a vote 13:57:47 zakim, mute me 13:57:47 Shadi should now be muted 13:58:03 +1 13:58:04 SH: +1 for people who would like to keep it as a research note 13:58:41 option 1: W3C Working Group Note. Research Note on XYZ Topic 13:58:43 Shawn: it remains a W3C note, but the title would be either a research note or a research report 13:58:51 option 2: W3C Working Group Note. Research Report on XYZ Topic 13:58:59 +1 13:59:22 SH: next option - research report 13:59:24 +1 13:59:25 +1 for research report 13:59:25 +1 13:59:33 +1 but not strongly either way 14:00:09 SH: we will call it a research report 14:00:17 Resolution: calling it a Research Report 14:00:34 yes, I am OK with this 14:00:41 Resolution: it is now fit to publish with the indicated typographic changes 14:00:51 q+ 14:00:55 ack me 14:01:20 SA: just to make sure - Markel is the only editor - are you guys going to make the typographical changes and send Shadi the updated html 14:01:32 Markel: do you have the last version available? 14:01:47 SA: Can send it to you, or I can send it to you 14:01:56 oops : download it or I can send it to you 14:02:18 SA: pick up the current draft and make the editors while I look after moving it up 14:02:24 Markel: will do it this week 14:03:23 SA: this is now a formal resolution to publish despite the changes - does anyone want to see a final draft after the editors - changing the title and typographical changes which will be published for all, and the bib ref moved further up 14:03:39 SA: does anyone need to see a draft? 14:03:42 not me, I am OK to have it published 14:03:45 no 14:03:45 not me 14:03:50 no 14:03:53 no 14:04:10 q+ 14:04:10 SA: also send this out by email for those not present at this meeting - need to discuss any issues before publication 14:04:24 should this be an action Shadi? 14:05:30 zakim, close aggendum 2 14:05:30 I don't understand 'close aggendum 2', vivienne 14:05:38 q- 14:05:43 zakim, close item 3 14:05:43 agendum 3, Current W3C Note Status [Simon] | Survey - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-Metrics/ | Title - 14:05:45 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0034.html, closed 14:05:45 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 14:05:45 4. Topic 3 Text Customization and Easy-to-Read - Online Symposia [Shawn] | Pre-Call - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Topic_3_pre-call | Comments - 14:05:46 zakim, mute me 14:05:47 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0033.html [from sharper] 14:05:49 zakim, take up item 4 14:05:51 Shadi should now be muted 14:05:53 agendum 4. "Topic 3 Text Customization and Easy-to-Read - Online Symposia [Shawn] | Pre-Call - http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/wiki/Topic_3_pre-call | Comments - 14:05:58 ... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-rd/2012May/0033.html" taken up [from sharper] 14:06:14 SH: Shawn will take us through this 14:06:35 q+ to share insights from discussion with Klaus 14:07:01 Shawn: big issue is to decide about pre-call whether 3&4 are together. We had some discussion on the list about idea on doing them together or separately. Simon should manage the discussion on that part 14:07:04 ack me 14:07:05 shadi, you wanted to share insights from discussion with Klaus 14:09:28 q+ to suggest doing pre-call with topic 3 as is now. then to try to get the broader issues written up before the full call goes out. 14:09:46 SA: talked with Klaus this week about it. Klaus feels that he shouldn't be holding up the text customization as it's ready to go, but he does feel it's important that the broader context is also addressed - 3 different aspects. Readability, understandability and lay-out/illustrations/graphics. There is a risk to miss out the inter-relationships between these. He wants to add those topics to 14:09:47 the WIKI - interrelated topics so that when we go to the pre-call we can point to the WIKI that there are closely related issues and you can send your ideas/thoughts and future considerations. Maybe also think of the series of webinars. But the bottom line is not to hold up the text customization - doesn't want to hold it up for 304 weeks. 14:09:54 3-4 weeks, not 304 weeks! 14:10:10 zakim, mute me 14:10:10 Shadi should now be muted 14:10:14 ack me 14:10:14 shawn, you wanted to suggest doing pre-call with topic 3 as is now. then to try to get the broader issues written up before the full call goes out. 14:10:49 Shawn - based on that input, I would suggest we do the pre-call for topic 3 as it is now, but try to make sure the broader issues are well written up before the final call goes out 14:11:00 SH: the precall that is in the URL. Is it the up to date one? 14:11:12 SH: there are 2 pre-call thoughts out there. 14:11:17 Shawn: the topic 3 only 14:11:35 q+ 14:11:35 zakim, unmute yeliz 14:11:36 Yeliz? should no longer be muted 14:12:13 Yeliz: not sure about the discussion. Idea is to go through this one for this topic and then have the other one. 14:13:13 zakim, mute yeliz 14:13:13 Yeliz? should now be muted 14:13:46 SH: last week we decided it would be a combined topic - but we need to make this week's decision final. 14:14:05 Resolution: this precall is for one topic 14:14:14 Resolution: topic 3 only 14:14:19 ack me 14:14:53 SA: Klaus talked about the risk of looking too narrowly and missing the broader context - especially if we are talking about cognitive abilities as well - such as layout. 14:15:23 SA: Simon was talking to other groups - is there input from this? 14:15:32 zakim, unmute yeliz 14:15:32 Yeliz? should no longer be muted 14:15:36 zakim, q+ 14:15:36 I see yeliz on the speaker queue 14:15:37 SA: Klaus have this as a topic, but make it broader 14:16:16 zakim, q+ 14:16:16 I see yeliz on the speaker queue 14:16:21 SH: the group may or not decide to go with this idea - need to decide about 2 calls, or 2 seminars close together showing the inter-relationships 14:16:22 q+ 14:16:39 ack y 14:16:41 SH: we should be able to link these together in a note 14:17:21 Yeliz: there is no need to limit ourselves to limit ourselves to 1 topic. We can always have broader topics later. Another one could use the results of this up-coming seminar. 14:17:57 +1 to Yeliz that the results from this symposium on a specific topic provides input into the symposium on the broader issues 14:18:04 Yeliz: this is not the last seminar, so why should we make it broader and slow down the process. Have this one and follow up seminars later 14:18:05 zakim, mute yeliz 14:18:05 Yeliz? should now be muted 14:18:08 ack me 14:18:50 q+ to suggest she make minor revision to scope section to leave open the possibility of the broader symposium 14:19:55 SA: agree with Yeliz and Klaus also. The general idea is to keep the topic as is. We haven't talked about follow-up - will it be the next seminar or later down the road. Sugggesitons - have a rough idea that we can mention in the pre-call - ie is this the first one in a series - should be mentioned in the pre-call. Some people who are interested and want to submit, we should be able to have a 14:19:55 plan. Second suggestion: this plan should be discussed with the WAI coordination group for better perspective. 14:19:58 ack me 14:19:58 shawn, you wanted to suggest she make minor revision to scope section to leave open the possibility of the broader symposium 14:20:00 zakim, mute me 14:20:00 Shadi should now be muted 14:21:25 Shawn: in the scope it points to related topics. If we are thinking of something broader we can change that section - may be addressed in an up-=coming symposium. For now keep it a bit vague and edit it as plans firm up. Timing - hoping to do precall 2 weeks ago, do we need to wait another week for pre-call, or can we do it now with the idea that the static email will have little information but 14:21:25 point to the page as it is refined? 14:22:17 SH: Timing needs to be right and they are related topics. I favour that we say they are related and that easy to read will be next and that papers submitted to this call and we feel should be part of the easy to read then they might be forwarded on to those editors. 14:22:48 q+ 14:22:52 ack me 14:22:58 SH: I propose I send it to the coordination group to see what they think. Why do we need to talk to the coordination group about why the group needs to be involved withthis 14:23:09 SA: less process, more content. 14:24:03 SH: I want to see if we are going to combine it or not. We'd like their input about the 2 topics we will run next to each other - we are grateful for their suggestions. We can tell them there will be 2 calls with mentions in the note. We will send them the pre-call next week. 14:24:22 q+ to say text customization has been mentioned in CG 14:24:35 SA: get their input before we send the pre-call - and get their input. We shouldn't issue the pre-call or call before the topic has passed 14:24:40 ack me 14:24:40 shawn, you wanted to say text customization has been mentioned in CG 14:24:45 4 April 14:25:07 Shawn: 4 April we took it to CG and they were given the link to the draft symposium page which has not changed significantly changed since then 14:25:49 SH: in that case, maybe we don't need to go through that loop - they can give us some background or resources. But if they have already had it, don't know why we need to send it back 14:26:20 SA: going to directly talk to CG 14:26:41 SH: will write an email today and ask for their input. mention we sent it to them on 4 April. 14:26:43 [ Shawn agrees it would be good for Simon to directly contact CG and ask for input -- I 'm just not sure we need to wait on the rpe-call. ] 14:26:51 SA: good for CG to have it as an agenda item 14:27:46 SH: see if we get any comments back from them to open this up. Tell them we hope to send out the precall in a week's time, we haven't received comments and we're presuming it's okay. If there is a problem SH will have talked to them. 14:28:15 SA: okay, good idea. Point back to the 4 April and ask about their comments. 14:28:19 q+ to say pre-call vs. more details 14:28:27 SH: that way we can get the precall out in good time 14:28:29 zakim, mute me 14:28:29 Shadi should now be muted 14:28:34 ack me 14:28:34 shawn, you wanted to say pre-call vs. more details 14:28:40 SH: Shawn do you have the URL 14:29:26 q+ to object to the pre-call 14:29:43 ack me 14:29:44 shadi, you wanted to object to the pre-call 14:29:47 Shawn: I'll send it to you. We have a pre-call with a static email which only points to the page for more info. The page for more info we can continue to update. How soon can we approve the pre-call that we can't change vs the more detail. Tell CG we're planning to send the pre-call, but let us know if you have comments on the symposium deails we can continue to refine 14:30:14 SA: precall does not mention the related topics - is in the scope section. It has changed since then. 14:30:26 Shawn: I have taken an action to change that based on info from Klaus 14:30:34 SA: precall is not ready to go out yet 14:30:52 I tink the precall is ready 14:30:57 Shawn: precall doesn't say anything about the details - do we have to add info to that as opposed to the symposium page 14:31:25 SA: add that we are aware that there are other related topics and for someone interested in other topics is there something they can do - need to be clear 14:31:35 Shawn: we don't have anything to point them to yet 14:31:37 zakim, unmute yeliz 14:31:37 Yeliz? should no longer be muted 14:31:43 zakim, q+ 14:31:43 I see yeliz on the speaker queue 14:32:13 SH: insteadof having something to point them to, this makes up the first of related seminars including Easy to Ready which will be announced fairly quickly - and link to WIKI page. 14:32:36 q+ 14:32:37 Yeliz: why do we need to say this in the pre-call? 14:32:41 ack y 14:32:53 zakim, mute yeliz 14:32:53 Yeliz? should now be muted 14:32:53 ack s 14:33:16 q+ 14:33:25 SA: I don't think it's a good idea to leave readers confused - we are trying to build up credibility and we need to be as clear as possible and not leave any reader confused about the work/scope and where they can contribute 14:33:29 zakim, q+ 14:33:29 I see shawn, yeliz on the speaker queue 14:33:55 ach sh 14:33:58 ack sh 14:34:13 Shawn: don't want to leave people confused, need to get it out soon and revise the scope. This is a pre-call - if you're interested, here's where you go for more information. Info on a broader topic will be coming up. More details will follow... 14:34:26 I agree with Shawn 14:34:35 ack y 14:34:37 zakim, unmute yeliz 14:34:37 Yeliz? should no longer be muted 14:35:12 Yeliz: i agree with Shawn and Shadi - not confuse people. But I don't think this precall is confusing people. As long as the precall says you will be receiving more info in a month's time 14:35:19 ACTION: Shawn update Scope to be more clear that there may be broader topic info coming soon 14:35:19 Created ACTION-25 - Update Scope to be more clear that there may be broader topic info coming soon [on Shawn Henry - due 2012-05-30]. 14:35:20 zakim, mute yeliz 14:35:20 Yeliz? should now be muted 14:35:50 SH: we will have to wait a few days-a week for email to CG. Vote: do we think the precall needs changing? 14:36:11 SH: add additional text from the scope and objectives that talks abou the Easy to Read aspects. 14:36:35 SA: we need to have a plan - will we have a 2nd one on ETR or what. We need to be able to mention our plan so that it is clear to the reader. 14:37:04 ..as long as we have editors to do so 14:37:23 SA: do you have the editors and the committment for the next one? Is Klaus alone or are others working with him? 14:37:47 I think we should not wait 14:37:51 Shawn: it's going to take a few weeks to define those things? Do we wait a minimum of 2-4 weeks to sort this out? Do we need to wait the pre-call for this? 14:37:54 it will take time to finalise details 14:37:56 +1 14:38:16 Agreement with Shawn's statement: Yeliz 14:38:33 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:38:33 On the phone I see vivienne (muted), Shadi, Shawn, Yehya, sharper, markel, Yeliz? (muted) 14:38:34 No, that we just me scribing 14:38:43 I think I'd like to see more clarification on a plan 14:39:01 I would wait until we have editors 14:39:05 for the next topic 14:39:16 yes 14:39:49 If we are mentioning something about the next topic, we don't have the editors etc. for the next one sorted out yet. I don't see the point. 14:40:08 Shawn: the pre-call wouldn't have anything - vague. Scope - we might have... 14:40:10 q+ 14:41:09 ack y 14:41:42 q+ 14:41:45 ack me 14:41:48 Yehya: agree with Markel. We can only mention other topics if we really have the editors and when we will have the topic. Maybe don't say anything about it, or we will have to be clear on when it will happen. 14:42:20 SA: we can work on lining up the next topic - talk with Klaus to see if you want to pair him with someone else. We can work out the plan more with Klaus over the next week. 14:42:59 SH: on the Wiki the ETR on is also written by Andrea, so we need to ask both people (including Shadi) would you be interested in being an editor? 14:43:15 SA: not sure at this stage. I've not considered myself as an editor for that topic. 14:44:05 SH: I'll send out an email to list asking for editor for ETR. If we can't get an editor, so we shouldn't be holding up a topic when we can't get editors sorted. Get discussion this week. Need to get precall moving next Wednesday once we have topics back from cR 14:44:11 bye! 14:44:17