IRC log of social on 2015-12-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:01:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
18:01:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:01:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:01:35 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
18:01:35 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
18:01:36 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
18:01:36 [trackbot]
Date: 15 December 2015
18:01:41 [rhiaro]
present+ rhiaro
18:01:42 [aaronpk]
18:01:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:01:46 [tantek]
present+ tantek
18:01:52 [cwebber2]
present+ cwebber2
18:01:53 [jasnell]
present+ jasnell
18:02:22 [eprodrom]
I'll do it
18:02:26 [tantek]
scribe: eprodrom
18:02:27 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
18:02:40 [tantek]
zakim, who is here?
18:02:40 [Zakim]
Present: Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika,
18:02:44 [Zakim]
... wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo, KevinMarks_
18:02:44 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bengo, RRSAgent, bblfish, prtksxna, tantek, eprodrom, jasnell, the_frey, wilkie, jaywink, KevinMarks, Arnaud, shepazu, Loqi, tessierashpool_, bigbluehat, ElijahLynn,
18:02:44 [Zakim]
... dwhly, bret, bitbear, ben_thatmustbeme, tommorris_, cwebber2, oshepherd, rhiaro, tsyesika, jet, rrika, raucao, aaronpk, Zakim, sandro, trackbot, wseltzer
18:02:46 [eprodrom]
tantek: let's get started. Participation limited to members.
18:02:51 [tantek]
present+ sandro
18:03:04 [kevinmarks2]
kevinmarks2 has joined #social
18:03:12 [aaronpk]
zakim only knows who's on IRC
18:03:23 [aaronpk]
oh and it's not even correct
18:03:30 [aaronpk]
RIP zakim
18:03:37 [eprodrom]
tantek: eprodrom, you had an item about IE application
18:04:19 [tantek]
18:04:57 [eprodrom]
eprodrom: we're working on IEs and re-evaluating how we do IEs. We want the current application backlog to be part of that, so we'll be evaluating over the next few weeks.
18:05:20 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: approval of minutes from 2015-12-08
18:05:40 [eprodrom]
18:06:01 [cwebber2]
18:06:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:06:03 [cwebber2]
just read :)
18:06:07 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: approve minutes of 2015-12-08
18:06:07 [rhiaro]
18:06:09 [eprodrom]
18:06:11 [jasnell]
18:06:14 [aaronpk]
18:06:26 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: approve minutes of 2015-12-08
18:06:38 [shepazu]
present+ shepazu
18:06:39 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: Face to Face in March 2016
18:06:49 [eprodrom]
tantek: we have a date set at the December F2F
18:06:56 [eprodrom]
tantek: I'd like to see us confirm the date
18:07:05 [eprodrom]
tantek: dates are march 16 and 17
18:07:31 [rhiaro]
were we gonna email the list too?
18:07:33 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: Face to face meeting at MIT in March 16 and 17 2016
18:07:49 [eprodrom]
sandro: I'd like to see more RSVPs so we know who will actually be there
18:07:57 [eprodrom]
tantek: how long should we wait
18:08:02 [eprodrom]
sandro: get all RSVPs this week?
18:08:16 [eprodrom]
tantek: delay another week?
18:08:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:08:32 [eprodrom]
sandro: please RSVP now
18:08:38 [eprodrom]
18:08:57 [eprodrom]
tantek: you have one week to RSVP or indicate objection
18:09:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:09:21 [tantek]
18:09:25 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:09:26 [eprodrom]
18:09:45 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: RSVP or indicate problems with F2F date by Jan 5
18:09:50 [eprodrom]
18:09:53 [tantek]
18:09:57 [tantek]
18:10:00 [aaronpk]
18:10:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:10:02 [Loqi]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-15]]
18:10:33 [cwebber2]
18:10:40 [eprodrom]
sandro: +1
18:11:04 [rhiaro]
18:11:11 [jasnell]
+0 (no input, not sure I'll be able to go)
18:11:31 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: RSVP or indicate problems with F2F date by Jan 5
18:11:43 [eprodrom]
tantek: (or sooner)
18:11:53 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: Next telcon (12/22 and 12/29)
18:12:02 [eprodrom]
tantek: upcoming telcons will be during holiday period
18:12:12 [eprodrom]
tantek: this tends to be lighter when people are on vacation
18:12:32 [aaronpk]
both are fine for me
18:12:37 [rhiaro]
0 no opinion on either... will show up if there's a call
18:12:40 [jasnell]
prefer no more calls this year
18:12:42 [eprodrom]
tantek: should we have a telcon on these days? none or 22 or 29 or both
18:12:45 [eprodrom]
18:12:47 [eprodrom]
18:12:56 [cwebber2]
I would also prefer none
18:12:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Either are fine with me
18:12:58 [jasnell]
won't be here the next two weeks
18:13:03 [cwebber2]
it's going to be crazy over here
18:13:25 [aaronpk]
actually preference is only 22nd, but okay with none
18:14:00 [eprodrom]
tantek: I see 3 votes for none, 1 for the 22nd, and 1 no opinion
18:14:30 [eprodrom]
tantek: if there's no other input, seems like majority is in favour of none
18:14:36 [eprodrom]
ben_thatmustbeme: I said either are fine
18:14:45 [eprodrom]
tantek: that makes 2 no opinions
18:14:52 [eprodrom]
tantek: seems to be a strong bias towards having none
18:14:52 [sandro]
(fine with any options)
18:15:04 [tantek]
18:15:23 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: Skipping telcons on 12/22 and 12/29, next telcon on 5 Jan 2016
18:15:25 [Loqi]
I added a countdown for 1/5 12:00am (#5780)
18:15:35 [cwebber2]
18:15:38 [Loqi]
you're welcome
18:15:54 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: Activity Streams 2.0
18:16:09 [eprodrom]
tantek: everyone was asked to give CR blocking issues by this meeting
18:16:24 [eprodrom]
tantek: jasnell, have we addressed all blocking issues?
18:16:35 [eprodrom]
jasnell: we have 4 open proposals
18:16:44 [melvster]
melvster has joined #social
18:17:06 [eprodrom]
18:17:06 [jasnell]
18:17:11 [jasnell]
18:17:15 [jasnell]
18:17:19 [jasnell]
18:17:26 [eprodrom]
jasnell: don't believe we have any blockers
18:17:28 [cwebber2]
we agreed at f2f that the "expires" one is something interesting to explore but definitely not a CR blocker
18:17:49 [eprodrom]
tantek: if these belong in the spec, they are blockers
18:18:05 [eprodrom]
tantek: we can consider them non-blockers if there are non-normative changes
18:18:47 [eprodrom]
jasnell: Only 276 is normative, changes a SHOULD to a MUST
18:19:02 [eprodrom]
tantek: 277 would be a normative change
18:19:08 [eprodrom]
18:19:15 [eprodrom]
jasnell: I wouldn't consider that a blocker for CR
18:20:02 [eprodrom]
tantek: we have to close issues to resolve all open substantive issues
18:20:02 [Loqi]
Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-03-16]]
18:20:03 [Loqi]
Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-03-16]]
18:20:04 [Loqi]
Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-03-16]]
18:20:54 [eprodrom]
tantek: 261 may be editorial
18:21:23 [eprodrom]
sandro: I need to think that over
18:21:25 [eprodrom]
18:21:36 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:22:20 [eprodrom]
eprodrom: I think we can resolve some of these during the call
18:22:34 [cwebber2]
18:22:36 [tantek]
18:22:36 [eprodrom]
tantek: Let's make progress where we can
18:22:38 [cwebber2]
I have something to say on this one
18:22:45 [eprodrom]
tantek: time boxed by 10 min
18:22:47 [eprodrom]
18:22:55 [tantek]
ack cwebber
18:23:18 [eprodrom]
cwebber: tsyesika and I had a lot of conversation about what we can do about transient and expirable activities
18:23:38 [eprodrom]
cwebber: I wasn't convinced about expires at the F2F
18:23:45 [eprodrom]
cwebber: but I'm increasingly convinced
18:23:54 [eprodrom]
cwebber: so we could mark it at risk
18:24:39 [eprodrom]
jasnell: I thought we could just leave it as a non-blocker
18:24:46 [eprodrom]
tantek: we have to call it one way or the other
18:24:52 [eprodrom]
18:24:53 [jasnell]
propose closing the issue until it's figured out later
18:25:01 [cwebber2]
q+ to say I would also be open to this being an extension
18:25:04 [tantek]
18:25:07 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:25:32 [melvster]
18:25:35 [Loqi]
jasnell has 40 karma
18:25:43 [tantek]
18:25:46 [tantek]
ack cwebber2
18:25:50 [tantek]
ack cwebber
18:25:50 [Zakim]
cwebber, you wanted to say I would also be open to this being an extension
18:25:52 [shepazu]
18:26:11 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: close issue 269
18:26:26 [melvster]
18:26:28 [tantek]
ack shepazu
18:26:37 [cwebber2]
18:26:55 [eprodrom]
shepazu: could also consider moving this to v2
18:27:10 [eprodrom]
shepazu: will maintain continuity
18:27:23 [melvster]
v2? of I thought AS2 was v2 ...
18:27:35 [cwebber2]
I'm fine with that, but if that makes this convo more complex
18:27:38 [cwebber2]
I'd say just close it.
18:27:59 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: close issue 269 unchanged
18:27:59 [sandro]
-1 okay with closing it, with the theory that we can add it as an extension, although this particular thing is extremely hard to add as an extensions, since it can't be silently igored
18:28:10 [eprodrom]
18:28:11 [sandro]
-0 okay with closing it, with the theory that we can add it as an extension, although this particular thing is extremely hard to add as an extensions, since it can't be silently igored
18:28:13 [melvster]
18:28:14 [aaronpk]
18:28:15 [bengo]
-1 It's important to have 'expires' as part of object authoring/representation (by end-users) and not just processing requirements (of silos/etc)/extensions
18:28:29 [cwebber2]
18:28:46 [sandro]
(my -1 was a typo)
18:28:59 [sandro]
(bengo is not in the WG, so chair is not counting his vote)
18:29:06 [bengo]
18:29:07 [eprodrom]
tantek: don't recognize objections from non-members
18:29:17 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: close issue 269 unchanged
18:29:26 [cwebber2]
would be happy to work with bengo to make an extension
18:29:30 [eprodrom]
tantek: encourage cwebber2 to make this work as an extension
18:29:39 [eprodrom]
tantek: 276 is next
18:29:45 [tantek]
18:29:46 [jasnell]
btw, updated the working drafts today based on the decision at the f2f (finally got evan's id in there)
18:29:47 [tantek]
18:30:17 [eprodrom]
jasnell: 276 requires valid AS to use vocab
18:30:41 [eprodrom]
jasnell: SHOULD use AS2 vocabulary -and- other vocabularies, if you use those other vocabularies
18:30:49 [eprodrom]
jasnell: proposal is to say MUST instead of SHOULD
18:30:50 [cwebber2]
I think should is fine
18:31:24 [eprodrom]
jasnell: SHOULD is probably strong enough
18:31:32 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: close issue 276 without change
18:31:37 [melvster]
18:31:46 [cwebber2]
18:32:21 [eprodrom]
jasnell: I'd like to have input from Rene
18:32:28 [eprodrom]
tantek: you can object to this
18:32:33 [jasnell]
-1 would prefer to allow Rene to speak on this before closing
18:32:58 [tantek]
18:33:13 [eprodrom]
jasnell: 277 removes the Actor type
18:33:22 [eprodrom]
jasnell: it's an abstract supertype
18:33:28 [cwebber2]
18:33:37 [eprodrom]
jasnell: unusual to implement but otherwise not used
18:33:51 [tantek]
ack cwebber
18:34:35 [eprodrom]
jasnell: would remove this to make it simpler
18:34:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:34:55 [eprodrom]
cwebber2: even if this is not directly used, it's still valuable for structuring
18:34:56 [eprodrom]
18:35:02 [tantek]
ack ben_thatmustbeme
18:35:04 [eprodrom]
cwebber2: it's not the end of the world, though
18:35:19 [shepazu]
18:35:26 [eprodrom]
ben_thatmustbeme: is there any other mechanism we can use to say, this is an abstract type?
18:35:33 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:35:33 [eprodrom]
jasnell: that's possible, but not a current notion
18:35:34 [cwebber2]
18:35:59 [tantek]
zakim, close queue
18:35:59 [Zakim]
ok, tantek, the speaker queue is closed
18:36:16 [cwebber2]
18:36:24 [eprodrom]
eprodrom: similar to Content type, which we removed
18:36:27 [eprodrom]
tantek: we're over time
18:36:29 [tantek]
ack shepazu
18:37:05 [cwebber2]
(jasnell, if we did stick with abstract types, shouldn't activity be one as well?)
18:37:14 [tantek]
18:37:16 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: accept issue #277 and drop the Actor type
18:37:19 [jasnell]
cwebber2: yes, likely
18:37:26 [cwebber2]
18:37:28 [jasnell]
18:37:29 [eprodrom]
18:37:33 [melvster]
18:37:46 [cwebber2]
my -0 should be non-blocking though.
18:37:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
0, i do think it would make more sense to keep info about the grouping, though that could be just a matter of informative notes in the spec
18:37:47 [aaronpk]
18:37:48 [KevinMarks]
18:38:18 [eprodrom]
tantek: I don't see blocking objections, so I'd like to declare this resolved
18:38:29 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: accept issue #277 and drop the Actor type
18:39:10 [eprodrom]
tantek: we have not hit zero issues, so we could do it at the next telcon
18:39:13 [rhiaro]
18:39:16 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: Social Web Protocols
18:39:39 [eprodrom]
rhiaro: I have resolved a number of issues, and no FPWD-blocking issues have been raised
18:40:04 [Loqi]
Sandro made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2016-03-16]]
18:40:07 [eprodrom]
tantek: do you believe this has been sufficiently reviewed?
18:41:06 [eprodrom]
rhiaro: everyone who's active in the group has commented on issues, and it was required reading
18:41:15 [eprodrom]
sandro: is it worth having someone assigned to read it?
18:41:21 [eprodrom]
18:41:28 [tantek]
zakim, open queue
18:41:28 [Zakim]
ok, tantek, the speaker queue is open
18:41:31 [eprodrom]
tantek: but you feel confident
18:41:32 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:42:40 [sandro]
18:42:50 [eprodrom]
eprodrom: this isn't a spec, so what will its lifecycle look like?
18:43:03 [eprodrom]
rhiaro: this could be an umbrella for multiple specs, published as a note
18:43:20 [tantek]
18:43:23 [eprodrom]
18:43:25 [tantek]
ack sandro
18:44:06 [tantek]
18:44:15 [eprodrom]
sandro: we can document similarity between stacks
18:44:25 [eprodrom]
tantek: let's take this to a proposal
18:44:35 [KevinMarks]
18:44:38 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: take Social Web Protocols to First Public Working Draft
18:44:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:44:47 [tsyesika]
18:45:00 [rhiaro]
18:45:02 [aaronpk]
18:45:05 [sandro]
18:45:05 [cwebber2]
18:45:08 [eprodrom]
18:45:10 [cwebber2]
for a specific reason
18:45:18 [melvster]
18:45:19 [cwebber2]
I sent a large amount of feedback to rhiaro which has not been addressed
18:45:24 [cwebber2]
18:45:30 [cwebber2]
I don't know if that warrants holdin git off
18:45:31 [cwebber2]
18:45:35 [cwebber2]
I don't know enough about this process
18:46:07 [eprodrom]
tantek: FPWD doesn't have to reflect consensus
18:46:24 [eprodrom]
tantek: It tells the public that we are working on this, possibly for rec track
18:46:30 [cwebber2]
tantek, thanks for that indication, okay, in that case, I am +1
18:46:36 [eprodrom]
tantek: starts the clock on declaring exclusioins in terms of IP
18:46:37 [tantek]
18:46:39 [melvster]
18:46:51 [eprodrom]
18:47:01 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: take Social Web Protocols to First Public Working Draft
18:47:41 [eprodrom]
tantek: let's timebox next items to 5 min
18:48:10 [eprodrom]
tantek: all edits have been made per jasnell
18:48:26 [sandro]
yes, i agree decision was made at f2f.
18:48:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:48:35 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: push new WD of AS2
18:48:43 [eprodrom]
18:48:54 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: WebMention
18:49:12 [aaronpk]
18:49:17 [eprodrom]
I just dropped off the call, can someone scribe please?
18:49:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
18:50:02 [Loqi]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-15]]
18:50:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: there were no new issues on github over hte past week when we requested blocked issues, i have been incorporating feedback and latest version is available and was converted to respec
18:50:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... link in irc
18:50:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do you believe the spec has received sufficient review to take it to FPWD?
18:50:56 [tantek]
18:51:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: yes, i do believe a number have people have read it over and contributed their thoughts
18:51:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
PROPOSAL: take webmention to FPWD
18:51:23 [sandro]
18:51:24 [melvster]
-0 a 5 minute window is not quite enough time provide accurate feedback, will send feedback to list ... non blocking
18:51:24 [cwebber2]
18:51:26 [rhiaro]
18:51:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
ben_thatmustbeme: +1
18:51:41 [eprodrom]
18:51:43 [KevinMarks]
18:51:43 [jasnell]
18:52:04 [melvster]
PS was also down for some of today
18:52:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: as background we did request anyone provide feedback at F2F over this time, so it has been public
18:52:41 [eprodrom]
scribe: eprodrom
18:52:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick eprodrom
18:52:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: eprodrom
18:52:56 [eprodrom]
tantek: recognize that there was time for feedback
18:53:05 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: take webmention to FPWD
18:53:18 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: ActivityPump
18:53:19 [tantek]
18:53:35 [eprodrom]
cwebber: tsyesika and I had a significant meeting in private to address difficult issues in AP
18:54:03 [eprodrom]
cwebber: I will be filing issues along those points, thoughts on how to clean up rough edges for implementers
18:54:25 [eprodrom]
cwebber: have commented on issues, but haven't put FPWD on the agenda this week
18:54:37 [eprodrom]
cwebber: to my knowledge, no one has raised a blocker on AP
18:54:46 [eprodrom]
cwebber: happy to delay until next call
18:55:17 [eprodrom]
tantek: we didn't ask for FPWD-blocker issues
18:55:21 [eprodrom]
cwebber: can I ask now?
18:55:32 [sandro]
18:55:40 [tantek]
ack sandro
18:55:43 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump by 5 Jan 2016
18:55:59 [cwebber2]
actually, can we delay till Jan 12
18:56:09 [cwebber2]
I will be on a train :)
18:56:11 [cwebber2]
18:56:15 [eprodrom]
sandro: we mentioned at F2F to keep both AP and micropub in sync
18:56:22 [cwebber2]
I could do jan 5 but I think jan 12 would be easier
18:56:31 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump by 12 Jan 2016
18:56:40 [eprodrom]
18:56:44 [aaronpk]
I would be okay with Jan 12 for micropub too.
18:56:59 [aaronpk]
still need time to work on webmention fpwd :-)
18:57:01 [cwebber2]
yes, I'm okay with it
18:57:12 [cwebber2]
sounds great
18:57:12 [eprodrom]
18:57:14 [tsyesika]
18:57:14 [aaronpk]
18:57:17 [cwebber2]
18:57:19 [rhiaro]
18:57:25 [cwebber2]
(should we get an update to the proposed?)
18:57:29 [cwebber2]
for the webmention part too
18:57:35 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump by 12 Jan 2016
18:57:52 [tsyesika]
18:58:03 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump and micropub by 12 Jan 2016
18:58:06 [rhiaro]
18:58:08 [cwebber2]
18:58:11 [tsyesika]
18:58:12 [KevinMarks]
18:58:13 [eprodrom]
18:58:13 [aaronpk]
18:58:17 [melvster]
18:58:21 [sandro]
18:58:43 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump and micropub by 12 Jan 2016
18:58:51 [sandro]
tantek: just that one resolution
18:58:54 [eprodrom]
tantek: previous resolution was incorrect
18:58:55 [aaronpk]
s/RESOLVED: Request raise FPWD-blocking issues on ActivityPump by 12 Jan 2016//
18:59:41 [eprodrom]
tantek: Postponing post-type detection until next call
18:59:46 [eprodrom]
tantek: additional issues?
18:59:56 [eprodrom]
18:59:58 [tantek]
19:00:02 [eprodrom]
And a very good year!
19:00:05 [Loqi]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-15]]
19:00:13 [eprodrom]
19:00:24 [eprodrom]
tantek: enjoy your holidays
19:00:27 [sandro]
happy december, everyone!
19:00:41 [eprodrom]
tantek: next meeting 1/5, Arnaud to chair
19:00:48 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
19:00:48 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:00:48 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber,
19:00:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
19:00:51 [aaronpk]
aaronpk has changed the topic to: Next telcon: IRC logs:
19:00:51 [Loqi]
eprodrom has 28 karma
19:00:52 [Zakim]
... tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo, ben_thatmust, KevinMarks_
19:00:53 [tantek]
19:00:56 [Loqi]
eprodrom has 29 karma
19:00:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:00:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
19:00:57 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:00:57 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items