IRC log of dwbp on 2015-01-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:58:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dwbp
13:58:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/30-dwbp-irc
13:58:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs 351
13:58:27 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #dwbp
13:58:29 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be DWBP
13:58:29 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM already started
13:58:30 [trackbot]
Meeting: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
13:58:30 [trackbot]
Date: 30 January 2015
13:58:51 [phila]
zakim, this will be dwbp
13:58:52 [Zakim]
ok, phila, I see DATA_DWBP()9:00AM already started
13:58:54 [deirdrelee]
rrsagent, make logs public
13:58:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.626.487.aabb
13:59:01 [deirdrelee]
chair: deirdrelee
13:59:14 [riccardoAlbertoni]
riccardoAlbertoni has joined #DWBP
13:59:16 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
13:59:19 [phila]
zakim, [ is me
13:59:19 [Zakim]
+phila; got it
13:59:38 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
13:59:49 [deirdrelee]
zakim, +[ipcaller] is me
13:59:49 [Zakim]
sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named '+[ipcaller]'
13:59:55 [Eric_Kauz]
no I am 609
13:59:57 [deirdrelee]
zakim, +[IPCaller] is me
13:59:57 [Zakim]
sorry, deirdrelee, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPCaller]'
14:00:00 [phila]
zakim, [ is deirdrelee
14:00:00 [Zakim]
+deirdrelee; got it
14:00:01 [Zakim]
+riccardoAlbertoni
14:00:10 [riccardoAlbertoni]
hi All!
14:00:23 [deirdrelee]
agenda: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130
14:00:36 [lewismc]
lewismc has joined #dwbp
14:00:41 [AdrianoC-UFMG]
Hi all, I am in transit, only in chat. Hi All!
14:01:09 [phila]
regrets+ Christophe, Laufer, EricS
14:01:37 [BernadetteLoscio]
BernadetteLoscio has joined #dwbp
14:01:59 [Zakim]
+annette_g
14:02:05 [yaso]
yaso has joined #dwbp
14:02:36 [annette_g]
annette_g has joined #dwbp
14:02:39 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
JoaoPauloAlmeida has joined #dwbp
14:02:49 [jerdeb]
jerdeb has joined #DWBP
14:03:12 [adler1]
adler1 has joined #DWBP
14:03:13 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:03:21 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
14:03:21 [Zakim]
+JoaoPauloAlmeida; got it
14:03:29 [Caroline_]
Caroline_ has joined #DWBP
14:03:30 [deirdrelee]
zakim, who is here
14:03:30 [Zakim]
deirdrelee, you need to end that query with '?'
14:03:33 [deirdrelee]
zakim, who is here?
14:03:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.609.557.aaaa, +1.626.487.aabb, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida
14:03:35 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Caroline_, adler1, jerdeb, JoaoPauloAlmeida, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, lewismc, riccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, AdrianoC-UFMG, Eric_Kauz, deirdrelee,
14:03:35 [Zakim]
... phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, sandro, trackbot
14:03:49 [Eric_Kauz]
zakim, aaaa is me
14:03:49 [Zakim]
+Eric_Kauz; got it
14:04:13 [phila]
regrets+ Hadley
14:04:16 [lewismc]
zakim, lewismc is me
14:04:18 [Zakim]
sorry, lewismc, I do not recognize a party named 'lewismc'
14:04:18 [Zakim]
+yaso
14:04:20 [phila]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:04:26 [Caroline_]
Zakim, yaso is Caroline_
14:04:26 [Zakim]
+Caroline_; got it
14:04:27 [Zakim]
+??P25
14:04:27 [Zakim]
+Steve
14:04:31 [phila]
zakim, aabb is lewismc
14:04:31 [Zakim]
+lewismc; got it
14:04:44 [lewismc]
Thank you phila
14:04:48 [deirdrelee]
zakim, who is here?
14:04:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Eric_Kauz, lewismc, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida, Caroline_, ??P25, Steve
14:04:50 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Caroline_, adler1, jerdeb, JoaoPauloAlmeida, annette_g, yaso, BernadetteLoscio, lewismc, riccardoAlbertoni, Zakim, RRSAgent, AdrianoC-UFMG, Eric_Kauz, deirdrelee,
14:04:50 [Zakim]
... phila, rhiaro, hadleybeeman, sandro, trackbot
14:05:09 [jerdeb]
Zakim, P25 is me
14:05:10 [Zakim]
sorry, jerdeb, I do not recognize a party named 'P25'
14:05:14 [jerdeb]
Zakim, ??P25 is me
14:05:14 [Zakim]
+jerdeb; got it
14:05:19 [newton]
newton has joined #dwbp
14:05:21 [nathalia]
nathalia has joined #dwbp
14:05:35 [deirdrelee]
scribe: lewismc
14:05:54 [phila]
phila has changed the topic to: agenda: https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130
14:06:08 [Caroline_]
Zakim, Caroline_ has nathalia and newton
14:06:08 [Zakim]
+nathalia, newton; got it
14:07:00 [deirdrelee]
www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23
14:07:03 [phila]
-> http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23 last week's minutes
14:07:12 [lewismc]
propose: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-16
14:07:21 [phila]
s/-16/-23/
14:07:32 [lewismc]
propose: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23
14:07:34 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:07:37 [BernadetteLoscio]
zakim, ipcaller is BernadetteLoscio
14:07:37 [Zakim]
+BernadetteLoscio; got it
14:07:42 [deirdrelee]
PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23
14:07:51 [BernadetteLoscio]
zakim, mute BernadetteLoscio
14:07:51 [Zakim]
BernadetteLoscio should now be muted
14:07:56 [adler1]
+1
14:07:57 [phila]
+1
14:07:58 [annette_g]
+1
14:07:58 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
+1
14:08:02 [BernadetteLoscio]
+1
14:08:04 [riccardoAlbertoni]
+1
14:08:05 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:08:06 [AdrianoC-UFMG]
+1
14:08:13 [deirdrelee]
+1
14:08:16 [yaso]
Zakim, IPcaller is yaso
14:08:16 [Zakim]
+yaso; got it
14:08:16 [Eric_Kauz]
+1
14:08:25 [newton]
Hi Phill, I would like to ask you if you know why my name is shown as Guest +1
14:08:33 [Caroline_]
+1
14:08:40 [lewismc]
ACCEPT: Accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dwbp/2015-01-23
14:09:00 [deirdrelee]
agenda: http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20150130
14:09:13 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
s/ACCEPT/RESOLVED
14:09:58 [yaso]
Zakim, mute me
14:09:58 [Zakim]
yaso should now be muted
14:10:10 [phila]
Topic: Best Practice document
14:11:05 [phila]
PROPOSED: That we re-vote on publication of BP doc
14:11:29 [CarlosIglesias]
CarlosIglesias has joined #dwbp
14:11:31 [adler1]
q
14:11:32 [riccardoAlbertoni]
+1
14:11:34 [phila]
deirdrelee: Alternative would be to publish doc as it was last week
14:11:46 [adler1]
q+
14:11:50 [BernadetteLoscio]
zakim, unmute BernadetteLoscio
14:11:50 [Zakim]
BernadetteLoscio should no longer be muted
14:11:56 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
+1 to revote as long as we have a whole week as Deirdre proposes
14:11:57 [phila]
deirdrelee: Changes made since last week are relatively minor but numerous
14:12:10 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
... to review the document
14:12:24 [yaso]
Agree with JoaoPauloAlmeida, revote w/1 week to review doc
14:12:32 [phila]
q?
14:12:34 [deirdrelee]
ack q
14:12:35 [phila]
ack adler1
14:12:56 [lewismc]
Keith has read document, assessment is that 1st draft is good
14:13:22 [deirdrelee]
s/Keith/adler1
14:13:44 [lewismc]
adler1 states that many of the recommendations have been seen elsewhere
14:14:04 [deirdrelee]
adler1: first impression is that document is good, but that many of the recommendations have been seen elsewhere
14:14:04 [phila]
s/adler1/adler1:/
14:14:16 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:14:30 [CarlosIglesias]
zakim, IPcaller is me
14:14:30 [Zakim]
+CarlosIglesias; got it
14:15:13 [vagner]
vagner has joined #dwbp
14:15:24 [lewismc]
adler1: this document represents a table of contents pfor our work
14:15:29 [newton]
Zakim, Caroline_ has vagner
14:15:29 [Zakim]
+vagner; got it
14:15:39 [lewismc]
adler1: enables public to see our work over the next year
14:15:57 [Caroline_]
Zakim, Caroline_ has vagner
14:15:57 [Zakim]
vagner was already listed in Caroline_, Caroline_
14:15:58 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: asked BernadetteLoscio about her options on whether to VOTE next week
14:16:13 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: stated that the group requires more time
14:16:17 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
q+
14:16:41 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: stated the group had a review, acknwledging there was consensus that more needs to be done
14:17:30 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: stated that more time is required, however some sections of thr document did not receive comments... due to lack of time
14:18:02 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: stated that it is an incremental process but that more time is required to make those incremental improvements
14:18:32 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: the WG requires more time before document goes public
14:18:40 [lewismc]
thank you Caroline_
14:18:50 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
I propose that phila summarize the changes to the document, during the call so that we can decide on this; I understand this would be a defense for a revote?
14:18:51 [adler1]
good points
14:18:58 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: it is not clear when the document is good enough to become public
14:19:15 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: if everyone has more time to review we have more time to improve
14:19:21 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
lewismc, I don't think this is not what BernadetteLoscio is saying...
14:19:23 [Caroline_]
+1 to BernadetteLoscio
14:19:25 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: this generally needs to be clearer
14:20:11 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: there were trivial changes but not specifically content changes
14:20:31 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
ack me
14:20:32 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: prompted phila to comment on background
14:20:46 [phila]
This is the first working draft of this document to be formally published and all text is explicitly open to review. In this first version, 29 best practices are proposed and more than 25 requirements have been addressed. However, there are still many ongoing discussions in the group about important subjects, like terminology and scope. The group is still working towards consensus on the meaning and application of some important terms including: vocabulary, metadat
14:20:46 [phila]
a, data model, data format, schema and dataset. Other important issues relate to the definition of best practices for vocabularies. For example it is not clear if providing advice to data publishers to create and re-use vocabularies is in the scope of the DWBP. Likewise, there is not yet consensus on whether data preservation is in scope. The Working Group is therefore particularly keen to receive comments to ensure that its future work is relevant, useful and comp
14:20:47 [phila]
rehensive. Please send comments to public-dwbp-wg@w3.org (subscribe, archives).
14:21:07 [annette_g]
+1 for first sentence
14:21:13 [lewismc]
phila: provide commentary on some proposed and accepted changes to the BPWD
14:21:32 [lewismc]
phila: document is inconsistent in the way it was represented
14:22:15 [lewismc]
phila: template defines a structure
14:22:31 [lewismc]
phila: however that is not what is present within the doument
14:22:49 [lewismc]
phila: disagrees with a lot fo the document, however trying not to comment
14:23:16 [lewismc]
phila: more work was done by other and phila returned to the document in an effort to make it more consistent
14:23:27 [lewismc]
phila: substantiative content has not changed much
14:23:35 [MakxDekkers]
MakxDekkers has joined #dwbp
14:23:39 [lewismc]
phila: data preservation very confusing
14:24:25 [lewismc]
phila: lots of confusing language in this particular section... simplest thing to do was remove preservation section and archive it
14:24:40 [lewismc]
phila: asking group to look at obtaining consistency
14:24:51 [lewismc]
phila: would support VOTE'ing next week
14:25:17 [lewismc]
phila: if people make comments in coming days, reflect on whether comment should be addressed before we VOTE or afterwards
14:25:21 [lewismc]
phila: on deadline
14:25:25 [deirdrelee]
q?
14:25:34 [adler1]
can't we just leave the original version and publish it, and then review phil's changes and vote on that in a few weeks?
14:25:46 [lewismc]
phila: one week may not make a different based on fact that we have not published in a year
14:25:57 [Caroline_]
I think JoaoPauloAlmeida was on the q
14:26:04 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
I left the queue
14:26:09 [yaso]
q?
14:26:10 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: suggesting that VOTE'ing next week
14:26:28 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
Caroline, because the proposal I made in the IRC was accepted, so no need to speak :-)
14:26:31 [adler1]
q+
14:26:35 [annette_g]
q+
14:26:42 [lewismc]
deirdrelee suggesting that quality of content is influx
14:26:47 [Caroline_]
sorry, JoaoPauloAlmeida!
14:27:11 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: suggesting that the document seems very much 'up in the air'
14:27:32 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: working towards a stable version of the document is very important
14:27:38 [deirdrelee]
ack adler1
14:27:39 [phila]
ack adler1
14:27:45 [phila]
q- adler
14:27:47 [deirdrelee]
ack adler
14:27:48 [lewismc]
adler1: version seems to have a very fixed meaning
14:28:20 [lewismc]
adler1: what would be the harm... since you VOTE'd last week, to allow the incomplete, incohesive version to go forth and publish
14:28:32 [lewismc]
adler1: then consider phila additions in a week or two
14:28:38 [lewismc]
adler1: allow people to review changes
14:28:45 [lewismc]
adler1: then publish verion 1.1
14:28:52 [lewismc]
adler1: then publish 1.2
14:29:09 [lewismc]
adler1: questioning if this is the way W3C works
14:29:32 [lewismc]
adler1: would incremental document versioning be acceptable?
14:29:41 [lewismc]
phila: versioning is OK
14:29:59 [lewismc]
phila: would be frowned upon if revisions were very close together
14:30:05 [lewismc]
phila: first impressions last
14:30:17 [lewismc]
phila: inconsistencies were things which needed to be ironed out
14:30:31 [lewismc]
phila: this is just his opinion
14:30:40 [lewismc]
deirdrelee:
14:31:13 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: proposed three options
14:31:23 [phila]
q+ adler1
14:31:30 [phila]
ack annette_g
14:31:43 [deirdrelee]
option1: publish last week's FPWD option2: vote next week for Phil's latest updates option3: push out revote for couple of weeks
14:31:44 [lewismc]
annette_g: require some time to resolve the changes
14:32:03 [lewismc]
annette_g: what we need to address the most, what things are in scope
14:32:05 [phila]
q+ to ease timing concerns
14:32:17 [lewismc]
annette_g: over next two weeks we need to sope which BP we need to set aside
14:32:30 [lewismc]
annette_g: at least we would have structure which people can comment on
14:32:42 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: can you please add your threee options?
14:32:46 [adler1]
do the teams have the energy and time to do the extra work necessary in a short time frame?
14:33:14 [phila]
ack adler1
14:34:22 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
q
14:34:23 [phila]
ack me
14:34:23 [Zakim]
phila, you wanted to ease timing concerns
14:34:23 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
q+
14:34:43 [annette_g]
*thinks we need pressure*
14:35:03 [lewismc]
adler1: concerned of impact of the team if we undo the VOTE
14:35:47 [deirdrelee]
q?
14:35:50 [lewismc]
phila: any document gets mention on W3C homepage, presented to W3C team follwing thursday, triggers legal process, 90 days to make essentisl claims on IP
14:36:00 [lewismc]
... ease tensions on timing
14:36:19 [adler1]
whew
14:36:19 [lewismc]
... no troubles at all to convinve others that the group requires more time
14:36:22 [vagner]
q+ to say I am not comfortable with the situation. Last week we were under pressure to vote. We did it? Suddenly we got to know few changes needed. Now, we got to know the document is not consistent and we need more time to read it over and review. We need some clear orientation about when we have to finish it in order to know how much time we reealy have to work on it
14:36:39 [deirdrelee]
ack JoaoPauloAlmeida
14:36:52 [lewismc]
JoaoPauloAlmeida: have people made all the changes they wanted to for this public working draft?
14:36:53 [lewismc]
...
14:37:07 [lewismc]
... has feeling we did not
14:37:30 [lewismc]
... are the proposed changes already there or does this just open the box again?
14:37:53 [lewismc]
phila: this will not be the case
14:38:06 [phila]
ack vagner
14:38:07 [Zakim]
vagner, you wanted to say I am not comfortable with the situation. Last week we were under pressure to vote. We did it? Suddenly we got to know few changes needed. Now, we got to
14:38:08 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
that makes me comfortable to review Phil's changes and revote
14:38:09 [deirdrelee]
ack vagner
14:38:10 [Zakim]
... know the document is not consistent and we need more time to read it over and review. We need some clear orientation about when we have to finish it in order to know how much
14:38:10 [Zakim]
... time we reealy have to work on it
14:39:42 [phila]
q+ to offer you a deadline
14:39:43 [adler1]
valid risk
14:40:21 [lewismc]
vagner: support BernadetteLoscio comments, not comfortable with back and forth situation. We are under pressure to publish. Last week document needed review. The team worked hard this week in order to finish it for VOTE'ing. Now it turns out that VOTE'ing is not happening today. we need clear deadlines for finishing the document.
14:40:37 [lewismc]
phila: understands frustration
14:40:48 [lewismc]
... suggestion on new deadline
14:41:02 [lewismc]
... adler1 promised we would visit COMURI document
14:41:17 [lewismc]
... propose meeting on 13 to COMURI
14:41:18 [deirdrelee]
q+
14:41:23 [deirdrelee]
ack phila
14:41:23 [Zakim]
phila, you wanted to offer you a deadline
14:41:28 [lewismc]
... next week could be considered a deadline on 1st working draft
14:41:46 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: possibly throwing something else in to the mix
14:42:15 [lewismc]
... two question for today (1) do we go ahead with draft with draft from last week without changes from this week?
14:42:17 [BernadetteLoscio]
q
14:42:22 [adler1]
the problem I have with extending the deadline is that we are effectively saying that the chairs can extend deadlines when they want to and if we do that more than once we lose credibility for the very notion of deadlines
14:42:23 [BernadetteLoscio]
q+
14:42:41 [lewismc]
... (2) the chanes that have been made this week e.g. consistency, should we VOTE on this next week
14:42:42 [lewismc]
...
14:42:46 [phila]
PROPOSED: That we publish the version that was voted on last week without the changes made since then
14:42:59 [newton]
s/chanes/changes/g
14:43:02 [lewismc]
... we don't have an option to put it off
14:43:09 [deirdrelee]
ack deirdrelee
14:43:24 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: we don't feel comfortable version from last week
14:43:47 [lewismc]
... its better to have more time, this is the option of th editors
14:44:03 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: draw line int he sand about VOTE next week?
14:44:21 [lewismc]
... are you happy to publish version today?
14:44:27 [vagner]
q+ to say that after so many comments os current document it is NOT CONSISTENT to publish the document as iit was voted last week.
14:44:29 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: we need more time
14:44:54 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
q+
14:44:58 [lewismc]
phila: we can re-VOTE to put it off
14:45:01 [deirdrelee]
ack BernadetteLoscio
14:45:17 [lewismc]
phila: we could take a VOTE on whether last weeks VOTE stands
14:45:39 [lewismc]
... can we push for a VOTE in three of four weeks time?
14:45:44 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
I see three options: (1) keep last week's version; (2) freeze today, and vote next week; (3) backtrack completely and have more time
14:45:45 [lewismc]
... timeline is very useful
14:45:58 [lewismc]
... overstepped his role
14:46:18 [lewismc]
... tell him to shut up or just accept the changes
14:46:33 [phila]
q?
14:46:59 [phila]
deirdrelee: Should we publish as we voted last week, should we pubich next week, or vote to publush in a few weeks' time
14:47:06 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: (1) publish last weeks (2) should we VOTE next week (3) VOTE in 3 weeks and leave it to editors
14:47:19 [lewismc]
vagner: feels uncomfortable VOTE'ing on document as it is
14:47:54 [lewismc]
... the chairs need to clarify thier situation and help direct the group
14:48:04 [lewismc]
... only a few people actually debating VOTE'ing, etc
14:48:19 [lewismc]
... are the rest of the group actually concerned about this debate?
14:48:29 [lewismc]
... the group are lost on this topic
14:48:45 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: fair points , would love to hear other opinions
14:49:10 [MakxDekkers]
I ma definitely lost
14:49:11 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: we need to have decisions and not just have things hanging, but maybe after this week
14:49:37 [lewismc]
adler1: we need to consider how the work is being appreciated
14:49:45 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
q+
14:49:50 [MakxDekkers]
I think we should first get the document in shape before we even consider voting on publication
14:49:53 [adler1]
we all want to be proud of the work we create
14:50:04 [lewismc]
JoaoPauloAlmeida: are we overreacting to proposals?
14:50:04 [MakxDekkers]
It's why I abstained last week
14:50:11 [deirdrelee]
ack va
14:50:11 [Zakim]
vagner, you wanted to say that after so many comments os current document it is NOT CONSISTENT to publish the document as iit was voted last week.
14:50:13 [deirdrelee]
ack vagner
14:50:16 [deirdrelee]
ack JoaoPauloAlmeida
14:50:53 [BernadetteLoscio]
q+
14:50:57 [lewismc]
... it looks like this weeks version is better than lasts week however unsure right now, backing option (2) for the time being
14:51:03 [lewismc]
... feels that people are overreacting
14:51:12 [vagner]
s/os current/on current/
14:51:23 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: we need more time not just about changes for this week
14:51:50 [lewismc]
... changes were good and scope to review in 1 week is OK
14:51:53 [Zakim]
-yaso
14:51:56 [phila]
q+
14:51:57 [lewismc]
... however the document is not stable
14:52:05 [deirdrelee]
ack BernadetteLoscio
14:52:06 [lewismc]
... unsure about making the document public
14:52:25 [lewismc]
... not sure if the document is good enough to be a 1st public working draft
14:52:39 [lewismc]
... if it is not good enough then it needs more time
14:52:42 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:52:46 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
but we all though it was good enough last week (with only one abstention!)
14:52:49 [yaso]
Zakim, IPcaller is yaso
14:52:49 [Zakim]
+yaso; got it
14:52:54 [lewismc]
... we need more time
14:53:29 [deirdrelee]
q?
14:53:31 [lewismc]
phila: it is good enough for it to be public working draft I have no intentions to make changes over the next week
14:53:41 [vagner]
my questions for clarificarion from chairs and Phil are: (1) do we really have a deadline? If yes, when it is? (2) Is the current version of the document inconsistent? If yes, where it is consistent and how many time we have to work on it?
14:53:44 [adler1]
I feel a good compromise to take a week to read the changes and vote next week
14:53:46 [phila]
q-
14:53:54 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: appreciated vagner POV about uncertainty
14:54:07 [lewismc]
... will address this within the group
14:54:12 [Zakim]
-yaso
14:54:13 [vagner]
s/how many/how much/
14:54:35 [lewismc]
PROPOSED: go ahead and publish what we VOTE'd on last week
14:54:48 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
-1 given that we now have a potentially better version concerning consistency
14:54:50 [phila]
-1
14:54:53 [Eric_Kauz]
-1
14:54:53 [riccardoAlbertoni]
-1
14:54:54 [MakxDekkers]
-1
14:54:55 [vagner]
-1
14:54:56 [adler1]
-1
14:54:56 [jerdeb]
-1
14:54:56 [annette_g]
-1
14:54:58 [yaso]
-1
14:55:00 [newton]
-1
14:55:00 [deirdrelee]
0
14:55:04 [BernadetteLoscio]
-1
14:55:07 [Caroline_]
-1
14:55:09 [CarlosIglesias]
-1
14:55:10 [AdrianoC-UFMG]
-1
14:55:11 [lewismc]
lewismc: 0
14:55:30 [phila]
RESOLVED: That we will NOT publish the doc as voted on last week
14:55:48 [adler1]
+1
14:55:49 [lewismc]
PROPOSED: whatever the draft is today, we publish whatever is current document today at next fridays call
14:55:50 [phila]
PROPOSED: That we freeze the current version and puiblish to vote next Friday
14:55:55 [riccardoAlbertoni]
+1
14:55:56 [annette_g]
-1
14:55:56 [adler1]
+1
14:56:00 [Eric_Kauz]
+1
14:56:02 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
+1
14:56:07 [CarlosIglesias]
0
14:56:11 [lewismc]
+1
14:56:12 [jerdeb]
0
14:56:13 [deirdrelee]
0
14:56:16 [phila]
+1 to vote next week after a bit more review
14:56:27 [MakxDekkers]
0
14:56:34 [yaso]
+1 to vote next week w review
14:56:40 [newton]
-1
14:56:46 [vagner]
0
14:56:51 [BernadetteLoscio]
0
14:56:54 [Caroline_]
0
14:56:54 [nathalia]
0
14:57:39 [phila]
deirdrelee: Next week we can vote on whetehr we'll vote the following week
14:57:49 [lewismc]
RESOLVED: spend this week reviewing it, next week come together and repeat VOTE about VOTE'ing next week
14:58:00 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
Phila, could you please summarize in a single email to the list all changes made with a short motivation?
14:58:03 [phila]
deirdrelee: not sure how that affects deadlines and timelines
14:58:06 [phila]
+1 to deirdrelee
14:58:06 [adler1]
+1
14:58:10 [jerdeb]
+1
14:58:11 [annette_g]
+1 to Deirdre
14:58:21 [CarlosIglesias]
please, note also that multiple review extensions will lead the group to nowhere if we are not really to be actually reviewing something
14:58:27 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
+1
14:58:29 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: it is OK
14:58:44 [nathalia]
0
14:58:45 [AdrianoC-UFMG]
0
14:58:48 [riccardoAlbertoni]
0
14:58:53 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: maybe it would be good for BernadetteLoscio to review the changes directly with the editors
14:58:56 [CarlosIglesias]
we have seen few reviews/comments on the mailing list so far
14:59:08 [lewismc]
BernadetteLoscio: someone will try and be there
14:59:13 [phila]
JoaoPauloAlmeida see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0299.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jan/0313.html
14:59:22 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
thanks
14:59:38 [Caroline_]
+1 to CarlosIglesias
14:59:40 [lewismc]
deirdrelee: we touched nothing of the agenda
14:59:51 [phila]
That was my fault, changes were made *after* the chairs' meeting on Tuesday
14:59:55 [lewismc]
... face to face meeting email will be discussed on email
15:00:11 [phila]
Thanks Dee - great chairing!
15:00:16 [phila]
Thanks to Lewis for scribing
15:00:19 [Zakim]
-Steve
15:00:22 [JoaoPauloAlmeida]
bye
15:00:23 [riccardoAlbertoni]
Thanks, Have a good week end!
15:00:25 [Zakim]
-lewismc
15:00:25 [nathalia]
bye
15:00:26 [Zakim]
-annette_g
15:00:27 [jerdeb]
bye
15:00:27 [Caroline_]
bye!
15:00:27 [Zakim]
-Eric_Kauz
15:00:28 [Zakim]
-JoaoPauloAlmeida
15:00:29 [Zakim]
-BernadetteLoscio
15:00:32 [Zakim]
-phila
15:00:33 [Zakim]
-deirdrelee
15:00:38 [Zakim]
-riccardoAlbertoni
15:00:41 [Zakim]
-jerdeb
15:00:51 [Zakim]
-Caroline_
15:01:14 [annette_g]
bye all!
15:01:14 [Zakim]
-CarlosIglesias
15:01:15 [Zakim]
DATA_DWBP()9:00AM has ended
15:01:15 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.609.557.aaaa, +1.626.487.aabb, phila, deirdrelee, riccardoAlbertoni, annette_g, JoaoPauloAlmeida, Eric_Kauz, Steve, lewismc, jerdeb, nathalia, newton,
15:01:15 [Zakim]
... BernadetteLoscio, yaso, CarlosIglesias, vagner
15:01:18 [annette_g]
annette_g has left #dwbp
15:01:19 [yaso]
bye!
15:01:22 [lewismc]
by folks have a nice weekend
15:01:27 [AdrianoC-UFMG]
Bye
15:01:31 [yaso]
yaso has left #dwbp