See also: IRC log
<newton> I'm having issues to connect to webex
<yaso_> Hi gatemezi
<gatemezi> Hi yaso_ and all..
<yaso_> scribe?
<yaso_> scribe: Annete
<annette_g> scribe: annette_g
<yaso_> scribe: annette_g
PROPOSED: approve last week's minutes
<yaso_> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<Caroline> +1
<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2016/06/17-dwbp-minutes
<hadleybeeman> +1
<gatemezi> +0
+1
<newton_> +1
ACCEPTED: approve last week's minutes
RESOLUTION: approve last week's minutes
yaso_: is concerned about the low number of participants
hadleybeeman: points out that timing means we probably need to do some voting today anyway
<yaso_> I muted myself
riccardoAlbertoni: have the editors identified any of the best practices as being at risk?
... it's fine if not, I just want to be sure that we have addressed the point.
Caroline: thanks for raising that issue. We haven't flagged any of the best practices, and we haven't seen any comments, internal or external, about it.
riccardoAlbertoni: so we're confident we can find an implementation for all the BPs?
<yaso_> No, deirdrelee :-/
Caroline: well, we certainly hope so. we have implementations lining up.
<Caroline> the meeting was with Cetic.br :)
newton_: we have a lot of data published on the web at nic.br, and it seems they can implement a lot of our BPs. We didn't identify any at risk.
yaso_: any comment on the BP doc before we vote?
<yaso_> Hi BernadetteLoscio
<BernadetteLoscio> Hello!
none from me. I'm happy
hadleybeeman: I think it's been through an enormous amount of polish and review. If we look at it again very closely, we might find something, but it's probably the right time.
newton_: do we have enough people to vote?
<yaso_> no problem, Makx, you're in time to vote :-)
yaso_: yes. (Hadley explained that it's okay as long as the agenda went out)
<gatemezi> Great work indeed!
<Zakim> deirdrelee, you wanted to ask if we've given members enough notice to vote
<deirdrelee> even it it's in the agenda, do we have enough time?
<deirdrelee> yes
deirdrelee: was voting on the agenda and sent out 24 hours in advance?
<deirdrelee> is only 24 hrs needed?
<deirdrelee> tought more
<deirdrelee> sorry :(
<Caroline> :((((
yaso_: It was sent yesterday, but less than 24 hours, so we can't vote today.
:(
<laufer> :(
yaso_: Riccardo, can you talk about the vocabulary doc?
<riccardoAlbertoni> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html
riccardoAlbertoni: That is a link to the latest version
<Makx> Can't we vote anyway and then see how this could be made valid?
riccardoAlbertoni: you can see that we had a couple of appendices.
<yaso_> Makx I'll return to this topic after vocabs :-)
riccardoAlbertoni: this is to address compatibility with the RDF Data Cube vocabulary and to address modeling parameters for metrics
<yaso_> Oh my webex crashed
riccardoAlbertoni: we have two options for issue 223
... we can discuss or mark as postponed
<hadleybeeman> issue-223?
<trackbot> issue-223 -- Parameters for metrics -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/223
riccardoAlbertoni: if you consider parameters in quality metrics, we provide examples and some modeling. We can try to do some kind of metamodel, but it's very technical. We could be more formal, but probably it's not worth going into that detail in our doc.
yaso_: anyone have comments?
<gatemezi> Just to point out that it might be helpful to add a dct:modified date
riccardoAlbertoni: does anyone know if we can vote on the final version of the DQV even if we postpone the issue?
hadleybeeman: The answer is no. We need to have all the issues closed and all the actions finished and then be able to take that table with us along with the meeting minutes with us when we meet with the director.
<yaso_> webex doesn't work with debian os
hadleybeeman: what do you recommend we do?
<yaso_> :-/
riccardoAlbertoni: For me it's the same. It's just a matter of the procedure, whether we need to formally close the issue.
hadleybeeman: I'm a little unclear on what closing means in this case.
riccardoAlbertoni: Antoine has sent out an email asking for feedback, and basically the issue was addressed.
<Zakim> Caroline, you wanted to ask hadleybeeman about the deadline for report implementation
Caroline: the BP editors are in doubt about whether the vocabularies must be ready before we meet with the directory
... we're also not sure whether the deadline is extendable
hadleybeeman: we only need a director's meeting for the BP doc, because the vocabs are not rec track
<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#candidate-rec
hadleybeeman: For the BP doc, I'm pasting in the process rules link. That is what we need to show at the director's meeting.
<Makx> Aren't the vocabs not on rec track? I would hope they are!
<Makx> I am using parts of DQV in some other work, and having them as Recommendations will certainly help.
hadleybeeman: For candidate rece, we have to explain how we will gather implementations. Then we need to gather them. I think we can take as much time as we need. if we're ready, we can basically fly through that.
... at proposed rec, the doc goes to the advisory committee. The AC reps kick up a fuss if there's anything to complain about (usually they don't). At that stage we do nothing unless there are problems identified.
<riccardoAlbertoni> Makx: then let's work on having it as cad rec in the next working group.. :)
<Makx> Apologies, I see in the charter the vocabls are supposed to be Working Group notes. Missed that.
Caroline: should we put a deadline for our implementation reports?
hadleybeeman: I susppose we should
Caroline: so we can start right away gathering?
<newton_> The form for evidences -> http://w3c.br/form-dwbp/
hadleybeeman: it's possible the director would say our methodology isn't sufficient, but that's very unlikely
Caroline: so should we schedule a meeting with the director for next week?
hadleybeeman: sure, but we need to have voted first.
<newton_> I need to finish the back-end part (configure the database). so that's only the front-end interface of the form.
yaso_: maybe we can vote today because we have more people now. there is a quorum.
... what do you think deirdrelee or hadleybeeman?
<hadleybeeman> http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#Meetings
hadleybeeman: I'm looking at the process document…in section 3.2.
<Makx> I will not be here next week.
newton_: that is definitely an option
<newton_> tuesday
hadleybeeman: newton, that is definitely an option
<yaso_> Proposed time to extra meeting to vote: Monday 1pm boston time
<laufer> not good for me
hadleybeeman: we could do it with a doodle poll
yaso_: yes, let's do a doodle poll
<Caroline> let's decide now, please
<yaso_> I think yes
we need to allow time for people to see that there's a meeting and plan for it, too
hadleybeeman: I suggest we pick a time on Tuesday, because of what annette_g just wrote
<Caroline> +1 annette_g and hadleybeeman :)
<deirdrelee> we could have indicative vote now to see if anyone has problems?
<Caroline> 9am in Boston, on Tuesday is it too early annette_g ?
<laufer> let´s do the poll here now
<deirdrelee> so our vote meeting can be quick :)
<Caroline> anyway
<riccardoAlbertoni> yeah, I would keep it as 15 minute to vote
<deirdrelee> so let's bring up issues now
<deirdrelee> will anyone vote -1 today?
hadleybeeman: the other possibility is to vote by email
but it's fairly awkward to make it binding
<Makx> E-mail would work for me.
<gatemezi> if it,s possible +1 to vote by email
<Zakim> newton_, you wanted to talk about evidence form
yaso_: we can send a closing date by email, we'll finish the voting by x time
<Caroline> for Newtonm Berna and I from 9am until until 4pm Boston time on Tuesday we can be on the call :)
<laufer> there is the 24 hours restriction to the vote by e-mail? how much time it is necessary for closing the vote by e-mail?
<Caroline> s/for
yaso_: let's do the voting by email, and let's close the voting at a specific time.
<deirdrelee> voting my email will work if we foresee no issues......
<deirdrelee> otherwise, okay for email
hadleybeeman: we should probably give people warning before the voting period
yaso_: okay, that's what we'll do.
<newton_> http://w3c.br/form-dwbp/
<yaso_> hadleybeeman, yes, after the meeting :-)
newton_: I want to talk about the implementation form. it's had to make one that is usable.
<deirdrelee> looks cool!
newton_: if you have suggestions, it would be nice to get your feedback
hadleybeeman: yaso_, I'm creating an action for you for the voting.
<hadleybeeman> ACTION: yaso to send out an email calling for an email vote to transition the BP doc to CR. Voting will be by email and will close on 12pm Boston on Tuesday the 28th. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/24-dwbp-irc]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-286 - Send out an email calling for an email vote to transition the bp doc to cr. voting will be by email and will close on 12pm boston on tuesday the 28th. [on Yaso Córdova - due 2016-07-01].
<yaso_> thanks!
<Makx> How can action be due 1 July if voting supposed to close on 28 June?
<yaso_> No problem, hadleybeeman
<yaso_> Don't know why it's happening
<hadleybeeman> Yeay for testing :)
annette_g: the links on the left don't do anything
newton_: I'll fix and get back to the group
Caroline: should we organize the form by evidence or by BP?
<newton_> @annette_g as soon as I fix it I'll ask for your feedback again
<laufer> I think it is working, Newton. It is a matter of giving info of how it works.
yaso_: what's the difference?
<yaso_> newton_, the idea is great anyway - you just need to brush some javascript lol
<BernadetteLoscio> now, you choose a BP and indicate the evidences
Caroline: we don't see a big difference between the two
<riccardoAlbertoni> \me hi nandana, good to see you :)
<BernadetteLoscio> the oyher way is to give an evidence first and then select the BPs
annette_g: It's not clear to me how it would be different
Caroline: let's keep it like it is, then
<Makx> +1
<Makx> +1 keep it like it is
<yaso_> +1
+1
yaso_: it's up to the editors
any more comments?
if not, I'll end the meeting and send the voting email
hadleybeeman: informally, do we think the doc is ready to go?
<laufer> if someone will vote -1 in the e-mail, it is interesting to say now
<gatemezi> yes
yaso_: I think the people in this meeting are happy with it, but people might think of things with the email.
<Makx> Yes, if not now, then when?
<laufer> a -1 discussion by e-mail will not work...
hadleybeeman: we might have to resolve new issues that come up in the emails.
Caroline: I'm wondering now whether we should actually do this via email, since on a call we can discuss and resolve an issue right away.
<laufer> +1 to caroline
+1
yaso_: I think we could try to vote by email
<gatemezi> I thought it was an email asking to vote..
<yaso_> ops
<gatemezi> ...as-it-is
<Makx> I ma a bit annoyed about all this procedureal stuff. Why can't we vote now and get it over with?
<laufer> I also prefer the vote at a meeting
Caroline: I really think we should have a meeting on tuesday, because if issues arise over email, I don't think it's a good idea.
<hadleybeeman> (also worth mentioning that the Process document — since it's open in front of me — says we officially need one week's warning to schedule a meeting/call. UNLESS there are no objections from the group.
<hadleybeeman> So yaso, I would include the words in your email "unless there are no objections from the group".
<Makx> Is there no clause in the 24-hours rule that says "unless the group agrees"?
<yaso_> Ok.
<riccardoAlbertoni> we can hear you even with noise
<Caroline> there is no noise for me
<hadleybeeman> me neither
<yaso_> I'll write.
<hadleybeeman> Okay
<hadleybeeman> Let's finish this by IRC.
yaso, you're just muted, I think
<yaso_> I'd rather send the voting e-mail than a call for a meeting
<hadleybeeman> yaso: but if the editors would rather another call, then that's okay.
yaso_: I just feel that calling a meeting on such short notice is as difficult as voting without 24 hours notice.
... I think we can take the chance of voting by mail.
<gatemezi> +1
+1 to yaso
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1 to vote by email..
<Makx> +1 e-mail. Please let's be practical.
<yaso_> Let's fo it by e-maill.
yaso_: other groups vote by email, we can try it
... let's vote by email
<yaso_> Bye all!
bye all!
<gatemezi> bye all!
<Makx> bye
<riccardoAlbertoni> bye
<laufer> bye all
<BernadetteLoscio> bye
<yaso_> Thanks riccardoAlbertoni :-) for making the request for the minutes
<riccardoAlbertoni> your welcome!