<trackbot> Date: 01 June 2015

<Arnaud> as far as I know, we don't have a webex reservation yet

<Arnaud> so we're sticking to zakim at least for today

<scribe> scribenick: deiu

approval of last call minutes

<Arnaud> Proposal: Approve the minutes of the 5 May teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-05-11

Arnaud: any objections?

<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve the minutes of the 5 May teleconf: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2015-05-11

Arnaud: we can meet again in 2 weeks, June 16th

Actions

Arnaud: we have two open actions
... we can close Action-161, Andrei has done that
... and then Action-162 will remain pending until Rob sends us an update
... is there any progress we should be aware re. paging?
... if not, then we'll proceed with publishing Paging as a WG note

ericP: do we have to do some "status of the document" to make it consistent?

Arnaud: we have lost the main editors of that spec, so someone needs to step up and work on it
... Ashok is the last editor
... basically wrapping up the document and adding a note that says the doc is no longer on the REC track and it will be published as a note

Ashok: OK, I'll do that

ericP: the abstract and the intro need to be consistent with the note format

LD Patch format

Arnaud: pchampin said the test suite is complete, are we getting any implementation reports?

pchampin: I didn't get any response to my mail

Arnaud: are we going to fail to meet the exit criteria for that too?

pchampin: betehess has an implementation he needs to report on

Arnaud: officially the WG expires at the end of July, and since W3C now has stricter rules, we won't be able to publish anything if the WG expires

[people counting implementations]

deiu: we have one report from pchampin and one pending report from betehess

Arnaud: the report page is empty by the way

<pchampin> http://pchampin.github.io/ld-patch-testsuite/impl-report.html

Arnaud: so this leads us to LDP Next

LDP Next

Arnaud: we'll be able to still communicate in the transition period
... we may have to use WebEx starting with the next call
... we'll only use it for voice, with text going on in the IRC channel
... the existing charter goes on to end of July
... to recharter there's a 4 week period (for AC review) and we need to make sure that W3M is up for it in the first place
... if we don't want to have any disruption, then the deadline is the same (2 weeks from now)
... otherwise the WG will officially expire and we won't be able to publish anything
... and rechartering it will take longer
... by the way, the rechartering requires that all the members are asked for their opinion
... the used to be no specific criteria for going through, but now need a % of members to support the proposal

ericP: I think it's 20% of members

Arnaud: we will have to do a little bit of lobbying outside the group

<Ashok> He said 20 members ... I think it's 15 percent

Arnaud: I can tell you that at IBM, I get calls from people to support certain groups
... deiu took the action to edit the new charter and post on the mailing list (which he did, albeit a bit late) and then we didn't get any comments
... so what's the problem?
... are people still interested or not?

Ashok: I think it looked good, modulo a minor editorial issue

deiu: which got fixed

Arnaud: any other comments?

<codyb> We're happy with the charter.

Arnaud: we still need to get people to say they are at least OK with it

Ashok: I would personally like a little more enthusiasm, with people showing more interest in the group

ericP: we need to lean on outside people, so they can lean on us
... we need them to be interested
... what about emailing the people on the attendance list?

Arnaud: I would maybe suggest sending an email pointing to the new charter and asking if they're OK with it.
... so who would like to do this?

<TallTed> "We revised our draft Charter based on our meetup. Does the new draft fit your wishes? Can/Will/Might you participate in new WG?"

Ashok: if we're OK with the charter, I can do it

Arnaud: so among the people present today, is everyone happy with the charter?

<codyb> +1 (happy)

bblfish: I am happy with it

Ashok: at the AC meeting I was approached by philA, and he mentioned access control

bblfish: yes, so without ACLs, you don't really have a distributed system

TallTed: ACLs are always an afterthought

ericP: should the notion of search be related to the HTTP search proposal?

Arnaud: it might, but I don't think the charter needs to do that
... we could use it as a possible solution

<roger_> charter is looking promising from my perspective, but, I need to spend a bit more time with it

<Ashok> Roger, please comment soon

deiu: it would be nice if people would comment on the charter before getting on the call

TallTed: I don't think we should delete anything from the technical issues, nor from the deliverables

Arnaud: people should make their proposals on the list, and deiu (as acting editor) will work with them
... if we don't have all the required implementation reports in the next 2 weeks, we will publish LD Patch as a note

bblfish: I would like to discuss a bit on HTTP SEARCH

Ashok: I'm not sure how to proceed w.r.t. IETF process

Arnaud: you should talk to Mark Nottingham who chairs the HTTP WG

Ashok: I can't go to their meeting in Prague, but one of our guys can

Arnaud: I think the way to do it is to contact Mark and ask him how to proceed

ericP: people on the HTTP WG are there to preserve the status quo
... the challenge is to get other people to show up and say they are excited about this
... we need to get people on the mailing group and get the chair enthusiastic about it too

codyb: the pushback from Roy Fielding, was this on the mailing list? Does anyone have pointers?

Ashok: yes, I can point you to the email

<Ashok> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/

<ericP> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2015AprJun/0248.html

bblfish: the worry is that if you have a search endpoint, you're only going to go through that endpoint, instead of using the resource URIs

deiu: I would suggest we move this discussion on the mailing list

Arnaud: we should discuss on the LDP mailing list until we have a unified point of view, and then move to the IETF mailing list
... we don't want to appear divided
... I want to remind everyone that the important things to consider right now are the charter and LD Patch -- we want to freeze these within the next 2 weeks

[call adjourned]

<Arnaud> btw, I recommend people express explicit support for the charter by sending an email to the list

<Arnaud> rather than being silent

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/a note/the note/
Found ScribeNick: deiu
Inferring Scribes: deiu
Default Present: codyb, deiu, Arnaud, MiguelAraCo, TallTed, +33.6.66.52.aaaa, Ashok_Malhotra, pchampin, +33.6.43.93.aabb, Roger, bblfish, ericP
Present: codyb deiu Arnaud MiguelAraCo TallTed +33.6.66.52.aaaa Ashok_Malhotra pchampin +33.6.43.93.aabb Roger bblfish ericP

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 01 Jun 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/06/01-ldp-minutes.html
People with action items: