14:45:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:45:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-irc
14:45:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:45:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #w3process
14:45:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:45:22 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
14:45:22 <trackbot> Date: 04 November 2014
14:45:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:48:46 <SteveZ> chair: SteveZ
14:50:42 <Jay> Jay has joined #w3process
14:55:47 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
15:00:52 <SteveZ> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:53 <Zakim> sorry, SteveZ, I don't know what conference this is
15:00:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see jeff, Jay, Zakim, RRSAgent, SteveZ, chaals, mdjp, cwilso, timeless, fantasai, trackbot
15:02:42 <jeff> zakim, this is process
15:02:42 <Zakim> ok, jeff; that matches AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM
15:02:50 <jeff> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jeff, SteveZ
15:05:10 <Zakim> +??P10
15:05:12 <Zakim> +Keio (was ??P10)
15:05:20 <Jay> Jay has joined #w3process
15:08:34 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
15:09:03 <chaals> zakim, code?
15:09:03 <Zakim> the conference code is 7762 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), chaals
15:09:14 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:09:21 <chaals> zakim, [ip is me
15:09:21 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
15:10:26 <Zakim> +timeless
15:10:37 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
15:10:37 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
15:10:43 <timeless> scribe: timeless
15:11:04 <chaals> zakim, agenda?
15:11:04 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:11:09 <timeless> topic: review open action items
15:11:11 <timeless> topic: issues
15:11:15 <timeless> issue-140?
15:11:15 <trackbot> issue-140 -- The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date -- open
15:11:15 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140
15:11:19 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:11:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:11:21 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:11:22 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:11:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:11:45 <timeless> topic: ISSUE-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date
15:11:57 <timeless> SteveZ: we seem to have consensus that it only needs to identify people that are listed in the document
15:12:10 <timeless> ... we still have an open issue about whether the term W3C should be defined in the document
15:12:19 <timeless> ... after thinking about it, i don't think it belongs in the team section
15:12:27 <timeless> ... i think it belongs in 2.0, or 2.0.5
15:12:36 <timeless> ... where it defines W3C/points to a definition
15:12:49 <timeless> ... since it's a somewhat special status, it'd be good to be clear about what W3C refers to
15:13:09 <timeless> Zakim, who is speaking?
15:13:12 <timeless> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:13:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jeff, SteveZ, Keio, Mike_Champion, chaals, timeless (muted)
15:13:17 <timeless> jeff: i think it should be somewhere
15:13:19 <Zakim> timeless, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jeff (66%), SteveZ (4%)
15:13:30 <timeless> ... i'm still confused
15:13:36 <timeless> ... as to whether the section numbers will stay the same
15:13:43 <timeless> ... we talked about 3 different documents
15:13:48 <timeless> ... not sure if we're doing that anymore
15:13:53 <timeless> ... we talked about at the AB meeting
15:13:58 <timeless> ... about a document w/ 2 parts
15:14:02 <timeless> ... technical, and overall
15:14:11 <timeless> ... as to 2.0, 2.0.5, or where it currently is
15:14:18 <timeless> ... not sure until we talk about overall structure
15:14:25 <chaals> q+
15:14:33 <timeless> ack chaals
15:15:08 <timeless> chaals: i can live w/ saying "W3C ..."
15:15:14 <timeless> ... but i'm not clear on what you want to say
15:15:44 <timeless> SteveZ: it currently says "W3C is not currently incorporated for legal contracts
15:15:50 <timeless> ... it is currently composed of 3 hosts
15:16:01 <timeless> ... the hosts are governed by joint contracts
15:16:05 <timeless> ... hosts aren't members"
15:16:10 <timeless> chaals: it isn't normative
15:16:17 <timeless> ... it's incorrect, as there's a 4th host
15:16:24 <timeless> ... the other w3c hosts do appear to be members
15:16:39 <timeless> SteveZ: i don't know if they are or not
15:16:44 <timeless> chaals: they have AC reps
15:16:48 <timeless> SteveZ: MIT doesn't
15:16:52 <timeless> ... X does
15:17:00 <timeless> jeff: Inria isn't the host, it's Ersum
15:17:13 <timeless> SteveZ: Inria is a member
15:17:15 <jeff> q+ to get a clarification about delegations/Ersum/ERCIM/
15:17:19 <timeless> ... Keio is host, is member ??
15:17:26 <jeff> s/Ersum/Ercim/
15:17:34 <jeff> q+ to get a clarification about delegations
15:17:36 <timeless> ack jeff
15:17:36 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to get a clarification about delegations/Ersum/ERCIM/ and to get a clarification about delegations
15:17:58 <jeff> q+ to get a clarification about delegations
15:18:15 <timeless> SteveZ: is there a reasonable place for the Process document to point to a definition of W3C?
15:18:26 <timeless> chaals: where we have that information now is the obvious place to be
15:18:33 <timeless> ... there's just lots of it that doesn't need to be there
15:18:41 <timeless> SteveZ: there reason i was looking to point to something else
15:18:58 <timeless> ... we shouldn't have to update the Process document when the structure of W3C which is outside the control of the Process/AC changes
15:19:08 <timeless> ... I was looking for a place to point Outside the document that we could point to
15:19:17 <timeless> chaals: minimize the information, don't name hosts
15:19:22 <timeless> ... don't mention not part of AC
15:19:26 <timeless> ... leave it where it is
15:19:43 <timeless> jeff: i would not mind evaluating a specific textual proposal
15:19:52 <chaals> q+
15:19:54 <timeless> ... i'm not sure that i know how to piece together the current language w/ chaals 's suggestion
15:20:00 <timeless> ...but i'm not wedded to the current language
15:20:02 <timeless> ack chaals
15:20:16 <timeless> chaals: "w3c is not a legal entity, but represented by hosts" would be added to my previous proposal
15:20:22 <timeless> ... i'll make a proposal along those lines
15:20:23 <timeless> jeff: ok
15:20:30 <timeless> SteveZ: i think that's as much as we can do about this one
15:20:42 <timeless> ... does anyone object to removing the partial list of director's responsibilities
15:20:46 <timeless> ack jeff
15:20:46 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to get a clarification about delegations
15:20:59 <timeless> jeff: i don't object per se
15:21:07 <timeless> ... i think we should verify that this is listed elsewhere
15:21:22 <timeless> ... if we want this to be viewed as editorial rather than substantive, we should be sure it's listed elsewhere
15:21:29 <timeless> ... * lead Technical Architect of W3C
15:21:33 <timeless> ... * responsible for Consensus
15:21:37 <timeless> ... * responsible for Activities
15:21:46 <timeless> chaals: we did this the list before
15:22:12 <timeless> s/before/the week before TPAC/
15:22:34 <timeless> SteveZ: I believe that XXX is the only one not listed elsewhere
15:22:55 <timeless> jeff: we had a debate on Chair of TAG
15:23:03 <timeless> ... chaals raised it on the list
15:23:08 <timeless> ... i pointed out that it was true
15:23:29 <timeless> ... i don't object to removing things, as long as they aren't substantive/or are covered elsewhere
15:23:36 <timeless> ... the other point i want to make is
15:23:48 <timeless> ... "individuals may delegate"
15:23:53 <timeless> chaals: it isn't on the chopping block
15:24:09 <timeless> q+ to ask that delegation be clarified/expanded
15:24:13 <timeless> ack me
15:24:14 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask that delegation be clarified/expanded
15:24:24 <timeless> SteveZ: chaals you'll make an updated proposal
15:26:12 <timeless> timeless: AC Reps don't know all the things they can do, possibly including delegating being AC rep
15:26:12 <jeff> q+ to ask whether AC rep delegation is new or existing
15:26:29 <SteveZ> Exhaustive list of Director's responsibilities: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0181.html
15:26:35 <timeless> ... it'd be useful to highlight some things, including Chairing meetings
15:26:37 <timeless> ack jeff
15:26:37 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask whether AC rep delegation is new or existing
15:26:54 <timeless> jeff: for some purposes, including attending AC meetings twice a year, routinely that's done by delegation
15:27:04 <timeless> ... if they aren't formally permitted to delegate, that'd be a substantive change
15:27:17 <chaals> q+
15:27:18 <timeless> ... and given the role of AC in pulling together Patent commitments
15:27:35 <timeless> ... i'm not opposed to making that change, but we should make AC aware of this change, if it's indeed a change
15:27:48 <timeless> SteveZ: i think what AC rep can't delegate is being the email contact
15:28:19 <timeless> timeless: "AC reps may delegate everything except being the email contact"
15:28:40 <timeless> SteveZ: i was looking at the text, it says each Member shall send one representative to each AC meeting
15:28:59 <timeless> ... i agree it's unclear
15:29:12 <timeless> ... jeff, your point is that we shouldn't make such a change w/o getting AC input
15:29:18 <timeless> jeff: you made my point better
15:29:30 <timeless> ... if there are parts that can't be delegated, we shouldn't make changes to that
15:29:41 <timeless> SteveZ: that's the one i'd suspect Ian would say can't be delegated
15:29:46 <timeless> ... we need an official respondent
15:30:05 <timeless> ... I'll try to open an issue on this
15:30:05 <chaals> q-
15:30:23 <timeless> issue-141?
15:30:23 <trackbot> issue-141 -- Improve Errata management in W3C -- open
15:30:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141
15:30:33 <timeless> topic: ISSUE-141: Improve Errata management in W3C
15:30:45 <timeless> SteveZ: i sent out proposed text over the weekend
15:30:49 <SteveZ> TOPIC: 3.	Issue-141: Improve Errata management in W3C
15:31:12 <timeless> s/TOPIC: 3.	Issue-141: Improve Errata management in W3C//
15:31:26 <timeless> SteveZ: i don't know if people have had a chance to look at the text that i sent out
15:31:32 <SteveZ> Proposed replacement text for section 7.7.1 was sent: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0004.html
15:31:35 <jeff> +1 to Steve's text.
15:32:25 <chaals> [-1 to the proposal]
15:32:27 <chaals> q+
15:32:36 <timeless> timeless: i replied to that identifying a typographical error
15:32:40 <timeless> ack chaals
15:32:50 <timeless> chaals: the proposal adds a lot of stuff
15:32:59 <timeless> ... i'm not sure they're done right
15:33:13 <timeless> > A Working Group should keep their Recommendations up-to-date
15:33:21 <timeless> chaals: yes, maybe, but that's not the same as having errata
15:33:37 <timeless> >  Recommendation may be edited to allow a viewer to selectively display
15:33:47 <timeless> chaals: that's beyond Process into Pub-Rules and others
15:33:58 <timeless> ... I think you could do something simpler "WG must track errata"
15:34:08 <timeless> ... "each REC must link to information about errata"
15:34:11 <timeless> SteveZ: i don't want to link to it
15:34:17 <timeless> ... that's the reason for the proposal
15:34:26 <timeless> ... the reason it's overly elaborate, i agree
15:34:32 <timeless> ... is to allow the errata to be inplace
15:34:35 <timeless> ... instead of a link to it
15:34:58 <timeless> chaals: for some version of "in-place", i'd be happy w/ that
15:35:16 <timeless> ... but what you're doing enforced behavior that i'm not convinced is necessary/desirable
15:35:17 <dbaron> dbaron has joined #w3process
15:35:39 <timeless> ... on that basis, the proposal isn't something that i support
15:36:00 <timeless> chaals: the same way that things have Patent Protection
15:36:16 <timeless> SteveZ: the changes we're talking about are legitimate maintenance items and per the FAQ do have Patent Protection
15:36:23 <timeless> ... covered by "set of allowed changes"
15:36:49 <timeless> > any error that can be resolved by one or more changes in classes 1-3 of section 7.2.5 Classes of Changes.
15:36:56 <timeless> chaals: Class 3 is not in
15:37:04 <timeless> SteveZ: it is, per the FAQ
15:37:14 <timeless> chaals: Changes to conformance
15:37:28 <timeless> ... if you can prove to me that Class 3 do not provide Patent changes
15:37:51 <timeless> SteveZ: i promised Scott that i'd provide concrete text for PSIG to review
15:37:59 <timeless> ... you can raise it there
15:38:02 <timeless> chaals: i'm raising it here
15:38:12 <timeless> SteveZ: i'm copying from the FAQ which asserts the commitment does hold
15:38:22 <timeless> ... if PSIG wants to change the FAQ then we can make this match it
15:38:48 <timeless> timeless: can we point to the FAQ in the document?
15:38:58 <timeless> chaals: the FAQ is a non-normative statement
15:39:02 <timeless> ... it's an opinion about a document
15:39:08 <timeless> SteveZ: fair enough
15:39:23 <timeless> ... i still think we should send this to PSIG and ask
15:39:31 <timeless> ... i don't know how to any-better-state it than the FAQ
15:39:44 <timeless> ... we asked for the clarification a year and a half ago in my original letter to Scott
15:39:52 <timeless> ... on maintenance and that was the opinion they came back with
15:40:00 <chaals> s/opinion about a document/opinion about a document, and the members are under no binding commitment to those opinions/
15:40:03 <timeless> ... as long as it didn't introduce new features, then the Patent commitments applied
15:40:09 <timeless> ... i understand your example
15:40:17 <timeless> ... i mentioned it in our discussion at the PSIG
15:40:30 <timeless> s/promised Scott/promised Scott Peterson (Co-chair of PSIG)/
15:40:32 <timeless> q?
15:41:13 <timeless> SteveZ: chaals, you're concerned about people seeing a document that doesn't have Patent Protection
15:41:24 <timeless> ... per FAQ #37, I asserted that it did have Patent Protection
15:42:01 <jeff> q+ to ask another question about patent commitments
15:42:05 <timeless> ... would that change your opinion if the PSIG says that Patent Protection applies
15:42:13 <timeless> ... would you still object to in-place changes?
15:43:04 <timeless> chaals: i'm not sure
15:43:23 <timeless> ack jeff
15:43:23 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask another question about patent commitments
15:43:34 <timeless> chaals: there are two states of the Errata we're introducing to the inline document
15:43:39 <timeless> s/chaals/jeff/
15:43:51 <timeless> ... 1. Errata is not at wide-review,
15:44:03 <timeless> ... first question: do Patent Commitments apply then?
15:44:28 <timeless> ... 2. At some point, we want the Errata to be brought to REC, by wide-review
15:44:37 <timeless> ... when Errata are brought to REC, there's no question
15:44:47 <timeless> ... chaals 's question is time limited to the first state
15:44:57 <timeless> ... further, that text is clearly marked, so
15:45:12 <timeless> ... what chaals is not sure about is clearly marked text for limited amounts of time
15:45:21 <timeless> ... in most cases, it's unlikely there's a Patent on that text
15:45:24 <timeless> ... since it's Errata
15:45:42 <timeless> ... my theory is that we could say chaals 's concerns, even if accurate maps to a corner case in terms of real concerns
15:45:51 <timeless> ... in terms of moving forward w/ SteveZ 's proposal
15:45:59 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
15:46:47 <timeless> timeless: QQQ
15:46:56 <jeff> q+ to address timeless' question
15:47:09 <timeless> chaals: there's text after this section which says you may move to REC
15:47:24 <timeless> jeff: we're trying to not let perfect be the end of good enough
15:47:32 <timeless> ... i'm not concerned w/ one-off documents
15:47:40 <chaals> q+
15:47:41 <timeless> ... my concern is w/ documents in Living Document spaces
15:47:44 <timeless> ... such as html
15:47:46 <timeless> ack jeff
15:47:46 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to address timeless' question
15:47:50 <timeless> ... if we have HTML5 errata
15:48:07 <timeless> ... it may be that we never go through the exercise of HTML5+Errata and bring that to REC
15:48:22 <timeless> ... but someone doing HTML5.1 and the Errata text will show up native (normatively?) in the 5.1 document
15:48:32 <timeless> ... and for practical purposes, that will get the Patent Commitment
15:48:47 <timeless> ack chaals
15:48:59 <timeless> chaals: in that situation, we've solved that problem better, than Errata, we have a new draft
15:49:04 <timeless> ... you just point to the new draft
15:49:19 <timeless> s/QQQ/Some docs may never get from point-1 to point-2. QQR/
15:49:32 <timeless> jeff: if we're successful in doing that, and we do it every year, then you're probably right
15:49:40 <timeless> ... but we haven't proved that once in a row
15:49:45 <timeless> ... it may come out a year from now
15:49:51 <timeless> ... as chairs like
15:49:58 <timeless> ... or it may come out two or three years later
15:50:09 <timeless> ... for CSS, modules don't necessarily come out every year
15:50:16 <chaals> q+
15:50:22 <timeless> ... if we rely only on the next dot-release, we'd be very much out of date
15:50:35 <timeless> ... relying on Errata, or that dot-release w/ errata,
15:50:41 <timeless> ... i think that's a good balance of trade-offs
15:50:48 <timeless> SteveZ: the other point made to me, by other people
15:50:59 <timeless> ... is that they don't see the next draft because it has other things than Errata
15:51:06 <timeless> ... as a good place to highlight Errata changes
15:51:21 <timeless> ... people would really like to see the previous drafts w/ Errata inline/flip back+forth
15:51:26 <timeless> ... we have the technology for that
15:52:31 <timeless> s/QQR/Should the process do more to encourage more rapid-transitions?/
15:52:49 <timeless> ack chaals
15:53:12 <timeless> chaals: Errata are constrained as the first 2 sentences of 7.7.2 assumes
15:53:16 <timeless> ... simple process of making that happen
15:53:23 <timeless> ... not sure which problem we're addressing
15:53:33 <timeless> ... either there are technical changes, in which case you want to see the technical changes
15:53:36 <timeless> ... or there aren't
15:53:49 <timeless> ... in which case, i'm surprised that anyone would spend time on getting punctuation right
15:54:37 <timeless> ... i don't think we're solving a real problem
15:54:44 <timeless> SteveZ: other people do think we're solving a real problem
15:54:56 <timeless> ... they'd like the people who pick up the draft to ideally see the most up-to-date text
15:55:02 <timeless> ... because people are still using /TR/ to get the page
15:55:21 <timeless> ... things one link off, an updated-draft, or an errata page are not as good solutions as giving the most up-to-date information
15:55:26 <timeless> ... that's the argument
15:55:48 <timeless> chaals: i disagree
15:56:03 <timeless> SteveZ: i'm at a loss as to how to resolve this disagreement
15:56:04 <jeff> q+
15:56:09 <timeless> ... i think it will probably stay there
15:56:18 <timeless> ... that's why i was hoping to let the process enable experiments
15:56:30 <timeless> ... do you feel so strongly that you wouldn't like to enable in-line updates?
15:56:38 <timeless> chaals: i think the process can enable inline updates
15:56:50 <timeless> ... i feel we shouldn't be nickel-and-dimed into a living-standard model by accident
15:57:32 <timeless> ... and the ways you can represent things in a rec
15:57:38 <timeless> timeless: QRQ
15:57:47 <timeless> chaals: if i looked at an Errata page that looked like a Spec
15:57:55 <timeless> ... in what way would that not meet the requirement?
15:57:57 <timeless> ack jeff
15:58:01 <chaals> s/living-standard/so-called "living standard"/
15:58:08 <timeless> jeff: we need to back up to what the problem is
15:58:16 <timeless> ... i understand that chaals is skeptical of the solution
15:58:38 <timeless> ... i think it would be best to determine the problem
15:58:51 <timeless> ... this wasn't raised by outsiders
15:58:56 <timeless> ... it was raised by me
15:59:04 <chaals> q+ to say that I do not think the problem itself is rubbish, but that the proposed solutions are not helping us do anything better
15:59:08 <timeless> ... because i've had several important members share with me that when they want to know what's in HTML5
15:59:18 <timeless> ... they don't look at our document, because our document is out-of-date
15:59:25 <timeless> ... because in their perspective, that document is up-to-date
15:59:40 <timeless> ... i think it's important that we be responsive not just to the wider community, but also to our members
15:59:54 <timeless> ... there may be tricks, like timeless 's idea
16:00:04 <timeless> ... but, the reality is,
16:00:12 <timeless> ... the behavior of our groups is not following that trick
16:00:25 <timeless> s/QRQ/could we call our document its own errata/
16:00:53 <timeless> SteveZ: from a practical perspective, i need text to send to PSID
16:00:58 <timeless> s/PSID/PSIG/
16:01:04 <timeless> ... is it good enough to use to send to them
16:01:14 <timeless> ... or, do we need new text?
16:01:23 <timeless> chaals: i'll take an action item to suggest text for this issue
16:01:41 <timeless> jeff: are we meeting on Veterans Day?
16:01:46 <timeless> SteveZ: it had never occurred not to meet
16:02:05 <chaals> ACTION: chaals to propose a resolution for issue 141
16:02:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Propose a resolution for issue 141 [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-11-11].
16:03:05 <Zakim> -chaals
16:03:18 <timeless> [ So, yes, we'll meet ]
16:03:28 <timeless> SteveZ: jay points out that this is now a midnight call
16:03:39 <timeless> Zakim, who is on the call?
16:03:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jeff, SteveZ, Keio, timeless
16:04:10 <timeless> topic: Voting
16:04:18 <timeless> jeff: i don't think your agenda mentioned voting
16:04:25 <timeless> ... there has been some progress on Voting
16:04:38 <timeless> ... to at least grandfather in TAG people
16:04:57 <timeless> SteveZ: DSinger asked DKA to do a CfC
16:05:04 <timeless> ... i could send out a CfC on my text
16:05:14 <timeless> ... if we're going to get consensus, we should get consensus of exact text
16:05:22 <timeless> ... i don't want to have a vague thing
16:05:32 <timeless> ... wording triggers more responses than the general statement
16:05:41 <timeless> ... i can send the message to DKA about sending out the CfC
16:05:44 <timeless> ... i'm following it
16:06:03 <timeless> ... i didn't put it on today's discussion because i thought it was waiting for the CfC
16:06:17 <timeless> i/Veterans/Topic: Next Week?/
16:07:14 <timeless> Topic: Time Zones
16:07:15 <timeless> Jay: if the conference moves one hour forward (to 11pm), i'd be happy
16:07:27 <timeless> SteveZ: we could move to a 7am Japan call
16:07:33 <timeless> ... which makes the call late in Europe
16:08:03 <timeless> ... ~6pm
16:08:12 <timeless> jeff: it's nearly midnight in Europe
16:08:26 <timeless> SteveZ: i'll do that offline
16:08:33 <Zakim> -Jeff
16:08:37 <timeless> ... thanks all
16:08:38 <Zakim> -SteveZ
16:08:39 <Zakim> -Keio
16:08:39 <timeless> [ Adjourned ]
16:08:47 <Zakim> -timeless
16:08:48 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:08:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:08:49 <Zakim> AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM has ended
16:08:49 <Zakim> Attendees were Jeff, SteveZ, Keio, Mike_Champion, [IPcaller], chaals, timeless
16:11:40 <timeless> trackbot, end meeting
16:11:40 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:11:40 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:11:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:11:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-minutes.html trackbot
16:11:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:11:49 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-actions.rdf :
16:11:49 <RRSAgent> ACTION: chaals to propose a resolution for issue 141 [1]
16:11:49 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-irc#T16-02-05
16:12:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
16:12:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-irc
16:12:16 <timeless> s/Keio/Jay/
16:12:52 <timeless> s/[IPcaller], //
16:12:59 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:13:02 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:13:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:13:17 <timeless> RRSAgent, bye
16:13:17 <RRSAgent> I see no action items