14:58:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pbgsc
14:58:40 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/10/05-pbgsc-irc
14:58:41 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
14:58:41 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Steering Committee Telco
14:58:41 <ivan> Chair: laudrain
14:58:41 <ivan> Date: 2018-10-05
14:58:41 <ivan> Regrets+
14:59:46 <ivan> present+
14:59:46 <ivan> present+ George
14:59:50 <tzviya> present+
15:01:34 <jeff> jeff has joined #pbgsc
15:02:22 <liisamk> liisamk has joined #pbgsc
15:02:31 <liisamk> present+ liisamk
15:02:52 <RickJ> RickJ has joined #pbgsc
15:03:02 <tzviya> regrets+ Dave_Cramer
15:03:03 <RickJ> present+
15:03:10 <Rachel> present+
15:03:12 <jeff> present+ jeff
15:03:30 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #pbgsc
15:03:45 <Ralph> present+ RalphSwick
15:04:07 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pbgsc
15:04:18 <Karen> scribenick: Karen
15:04:22 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
15:04:23 <laudrain> Topic: epubcheck MOU and SOW
15:04:56 <Karen> Luc: Revised schedule for EPUBCheck
15:05:03 <Karen> ...we have received documents, MOU
15:05:06 <Karen> ...and statement of work
15:05:16 <Karen> ...that we have been working on, Tzviya and I, that I sent you
15:05:19 <Karen> ...a week ago
15:05:32 <Karen> ...we had some technical questions from @ about reference to HTML checker
15:05:38 <Karen> ...formation is found that is ok
15:05:43 <Karen> ...for phases 3 and 4
15:05:45 <ivan> present+ karen
15:05:55 <Karen> ...work for phases 1 and 2 is to make it validate EPUB3.2
15:06:06 <Karen> ...My hope is that we validate all together in PubSC
15:06:10 <Karen> ...the MOU and the statement of work
15:06:20 <Karen> ...are there any comments, issues, problems, issues with this document?
15:06:25 <Karen> George: The statement of work start date
15:06:34 <Karen> ...if that could be changed to October 7 rather than October 1
15:06:36 <Karen> Luc: that's easy
15:06:49 <Karen> ...if you all agree; or if you don't agree tell it now
15:06:52 <Karen> ...any objections?
15:07:00 <Karen> ...resolution adopted, thank you
15:07:03 <Karen> ...more comments?
15:07:47 <Karen> ...Version 5 has some light modifications advised by my legal dept.; just some precisions on who should sign, change requests, how parties acknowledge validity of signatures
15:07:49 <Karen> ...that has been written
15:08:05 <Karen> ...in the end there was an issue about which is the final document that would prevail in case of conflict
15:08:13 <Karen> ...I understand that the last document is the one that prevails
15:08:22 <Karen> ...each document has gotten more precise
15:08:27 <Karen> ...so that last document should prevail
15:08:32 <Karen> ...the last phase of paragraph five
15:08:42 <Karen> ...was modified to say that the statement of work would prevail
15:08:57 <Karen> ...reference to the new HTML checker has been modified with recommendation from Ivan and DAISY developers
15:09:03 <liisamk> +1 to moving forward with MOU in last draft with start date change
15:09:08 <Karen> ...I will renew my question; have you any issues with this document?
15:09:21 <Karen> ...There was also I would like you to discuss
15:09:27 <Karen> ...the fact that who is in charge
15:09:34 <Karen> ...which organization is in charge of these documents
15:09:49 <Karen> ...We were working until now that it was the Pub Bus Group Steering Committee
15:09:49 <tzviya> q+
15:09:52 <Karen> ...Ivan, you had a question
15:09:58 <Karen> Ivan: It's a legal question
15:10:09 <Karen> ...if there is a contract, the SC does not have the right to sign something like that
15:10:18 <Karen> ...I am asking this question rather than stating
15:10:32 <Karen> ...also, from organizations POV, the SC is an ad hoc thing
15:10:38 <Karen> ...on W3C org level we have the BG
15:10:41 <Karen> ...even if MOU
15:10:52 <Karen> ...more appropriate to have it signed with the BG rather than the SC
15:10:59 <Karen> Luc: I see Tzviya
15:11:01 <Karen> ack Tzviya
15:11:16 <Karen> Tzviya: Wanted to add, in discussions I had with Wendy Seltzer, we cannot have W3C
15:11:22 <Karen> ...sign for monetary reasons
15:11:29 <Karen> ...I agree it's awkward for the PG sign it
15:11:39 <Karen> ...maybe it makes more sense for one of the companies to be the signer
15:11:44 <Karen> Luc: we have to solve this question
15:11:53 <Karen> ...it could be to ask the PBG
15:12:10 <Karen> ...next Tuesday we can present the documents and say we would like to sign on behalf of the BG
15:12:12 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
15:12:15 <Karen> ...give them some time to review
15:12:18 <liisamk> q+
15:12:24 <Karen> ...if BG is not in position to sign it, it will take some time
15:12:28 <Karen> ack Bill_Kasdorf
15:12:34 <ivan> present+ Bill_Kasdorf
15:12:38 <Karen> Bill_Kasdorf: Even the BG is a W3C activity
15:12:46 <Karen> ...is that distant enough legally from W3C's concern?
15:12:55 <Karen> ...seems like a pretty amorphous group, the right group
15:13:06 <Karen> ...but hard to imagine there is a legal entity there
15:13:31 <Karen> ...maybe we should check with Brian [O'Learly] to see if BISG wants to get involved
15:13:41 <Karen> ...signing a legal document takes on some responsibilties
15:13:46 <laudrain> s/L
15:13:49 <laudrain> q£
15:13:51 <laudrain> q+
15:13:58 <Karen> ...having hard time imagining whether Wiley or Hachette wants to sign
15:14:01 <Karen> ack Liisamk
15:14:08 <laudrain> s/O'Learly/O'Leary/
15:14:11 <Karen> Liisamk: same concerns Bill has
15:14:21 <Karen> ...opening up to BG extends schedule by a couple weeks
15:14:33 <Karen> ...we are in an awkward spot if W3C does not want to take legal responsibility
15:14:46 <Karen> ...I'm not sure how we convince anyone's company to take responsibility if W3C does not
15:14:54 <Karen> ...then puts it to an outside organization
15:14:56 <Karen> ack Luc
15:15:07 <Karen> Luc: As awkward as it is, the Pub BG has. SC today
15:15:16 <Karen> ...maybe strange in W3C context
15:15:26 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
15:15:31 <Karen> ...but is there anything preventing the SC to sign that document?
15:15:36 <Karen> ack George
15:15:39 <laudrain> ack laudrain
15:15:45 <Karen> George: Who is the chair of the Publishing BG?
15:15:51 <Karen> Luc: Three, Liisa, Rick and I
15:16:03 <Bill_Kasdorf> q-
15:16:07 <Karen> George: I would think that one of those three should sign on behalf of the SC and the Pub BG
15:16:13 <Karen> ...I think there is enough authority there
15:16:35 <Karen> ...DAISY is intimately involved in tracking the funding so we can see if there is insufficient funding for the next phase of work
15:16:49 <Karen> ...Right now there are enough funds committed that would allow us to get through the first phase
15:16:52 <Karen> ...we are happy to move forward
15:17:04 <Karen> ...I don't who else would challenge the contract, but DAISY won't
15:17:19 <Karen> Luc: Today, it's how the documents have been prepared for the Pub SC would approve
15:17:22 <Karen> ...for the moment it's me
15:17:49 <Karen> ...i am not sure if you say exactly signed by the Pub SC or Pub SC and the Pub BG
15:17:57 <Karen> ...Another option could be signed by the three chairs
15:17:59 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
15:18:00 <Karen> ...of the Pub BG
15:18:05 <Karen> ack Bill_Kasdorf
15:18:16 <Karen> Bill_Kasdorf: picking up on Ivan's comment with a disclaimer
15:18:23 <Karen> ...I wonder if W3C wants this at arm's length
15:18:27 <jeff> q+
15:18:31 <Karen> ...maybe it's better that the Pub BG signs
15:18:36 <Karen> ...removes it one step further
15:18:40 <Karen> ...maybe that works?
15:18:46 <Karen> ...it's the same three and it's done immediately
15:19:04 <Karen> ack Jeff
15:19:07 <tzviya> q+
15:19:17 <Karen> Jeff: Not so much my recollection that W3C wants it at arm's length
15:19:28 <Karen> ...the issue was more about the MIT overhead for collection of funds
15:19:42 <Karen> ...not sure W3C has to have it at arm's length regarding the money
15:19:47 <Karen> Tzviya: That is correct, Jeff
15:19:59 <Karen> ...if MIT's name is on it, then there is a 27% overhead
15:20:08 <Karen> ...others don't want to keep it at arms' length
15:20:17 <Ralph> s/is a 27/is something like a 27
15:20:19 <Karen> ...Luc, did your lawyers have a problem with you signing it?
15:20:40 <Karen> Luc: they took for granted, not questioning that the Pub SC could sign
15:20:49 <Karen> ...we had not raised this question until Ivan put the subject on the table
15:21:00 <Karen> ...I did not ask the question to my lawyers; they don't know
15:21:03 <tzviya> q-
15:21:05 <Karen> ...I don't know terms on that subject
15:21:21 <Karen> ...my feeling is that the SC is something strange and some arm's length from W3C
15:21:34 <Karen> ...we decided to SC would be the oversight committee and take actions on this matter
15:21:40 <Karen> Ivan: as I was stirring up the mud
15:21:47 <Karen> ...I have no problem with the SC signing the MOU
15:21:51 <Karen> ...as far as I understand
15:22:03 <Karen> ...we have a juridical value because there is not a legal entity
15:22:09 <Karen> ...if DAISY is fine, let's go ahead and do it
15:22:21 <Karen> ...I don't expect problems
15:22:27 <Karen> ...lawyers are paranoid
15:22:32 <Karen> George: We are ok with it
15:22:41 <Karen> Luc: We should decide if we are all ok with it
15:22:47 <ivan> I am o.k. with the SC signing it
15:22:48 <liisamk> +1 to "ok with that"
15:22:49 <Ralph> [Ralph abstains]
15:22:51 <tzviya> +1
15:22:52 <RickJ> +1
15:22:52 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to the SC signing
15:22:53 <laudrain> +1
15:22:54 <Karen> ...are you ok to express that the Publishing Steering Committee would sign these documents?
15:23:02 <Rachel> +1
15:23:04 <ivan> +1 for George
15:23:04 <Karen> George: +1
15:23:14 <Karen> Luc: So I see no objection for the moment
15:23:18 <Karen> ...Garth is not here
15:23:22 <ivan> regrets+ garth
15:23:31 <Karen> ...and Ralph abstains
15:23:43 <Karen> ...So we would say that the Steering Committee is ok to sign these documents
15:23:51 <ivan> resolved: the SC is o.k. to sign the document
15:23:53 <Karen> ...and are you ok if I sign these documents in the name of the SC?
15:23:55 <RickJ> +1
15:23:56 <ivan> +1
15:23:58 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
15:23:58 <liisamk> +1
15:23:59 <tzviya> +1
15:24:00 <laudrain> +1
15:24:02 <Rachel> +1
15:24:05 <Karen> Luc: I am ok, too
15:24:11 <ivan> resolved: Luc is approved to be the signatory
15:24:28 <Karen> Luc: statement of work we change to 7 October; MOU we had
15:24:45 <Karen> ...there is necessity to say with last paragraph to say [@@]
15:24:56 <Bill_Kasdorf> hooray!
15:24:57 <Karen> ...I will put today's date, sign and send to Richard at DAISY
15:25:05 <ivan> yay:-)
15:25:10 <liisamk> thank you Luc!
15:25:10 <Karen> ...the MOU I will send first and the statement of work immediately after
15:25:22 <Karen> ...I think this settles our decision as the Publishing Business Group Steering Committee
15:25:24 <Karen> ...thank you very much
15:25:54 <Karen> Luc: Did anyone send a formal response to EPUBCheck RFP?
15:26:00 <liisamk> q+
15:26:02 <Karen> ...I do not know
15:26:04 <Karen> ack Liisamk
15:26:16 <Karen> Liisamk: If Tzviya did not do it, I don't think anyone else has
15:26:25 <Karen> Luc: Would you mind to do it, Tzviya?
15:26:26 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
15:26:38 <Karen> Tzviya: I suppose I can; does anyone one to help me with the language
15:26:43 <Karen> ack Bill_Kasdorf
15:26:56 <Karen> Bill_Kasdorf: I was going to suggest it be one of the chairs
15:27:04 <Karen> Liisamk: we'll make him pay later [laughs]
15:27:09 <Karen> Tzviya: I don't mind doing it
15:27:20 <Karen> Luc: I suggest that you do it, thank you very much
15:27:22 <Bill_Kasdorf> you will regret making me scribe. . . .
15:27:32 <Karen> Tzviya: I'll be in touch with you about your decisions on the vendors
15:27:39 <Bill_Kasdorf> I have proven incompetent at scribing on many occasions.
15:27:39 <Rachel> scribenick: Bill_Kasdorf
15:28:01 <Bill_Kasdorf> topic: Epubcheck fundraising
15:28:17 <Bill_Kasdorf> We have 7 pledges
15:28:50 <RickJ> FYI to the group, I expect to have the VitalSource pledge soon, and am working with the Core Source team to solicit contributions from all of their users
15:28:59 <Bill_Kasdorf> We have $39,020 pledged, although only over $1,000 or so received
15:29:16 <liisamk> q+
15:29:28 <Bill_Kasdorf> @Tzviya: We are hoping to raise $150,000; this isn't even close
15:29:44 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . if we don't raise the money, what happens?
15:29:59 <Bill_Kasdorf> Liisa: This is just going to take continuing effort
15:30:18 <George> George has joined #pbgsc
15:30:22 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . This has been a long conversation for me within PRH
15:30:26 <RickJ> given the timing, many companies are in the decision point of deciding is this a 'this years budget' expense with unused funds, or a 'get it into next years budget' reality
15:30:39 <George> present+ George
15:30:44 <laudrain> q+
15:30:49 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . The email from Graham Bell this morning pointed out that people think epubcheck is "part of the landscape" and expect it to be free.
15:30:51 <laudrain> ack liisamk
15:30:57 <Bill_Kasdorf> .  . We need to address that perception.
15:31:23 <Bill_Kasdorf> Luc: External Coordination TF has in fact sent the appeal to the organizations we've identified
15:31:51 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . At Hachette, I haven't received the invoice yet.
15:32:18 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . It's important to get the invoices out promptly.
15:32:28 <Bill_Kasdorf> Tzviya: we received our invoice the day after we pledged.
15:32:48 <Bill_Kasdorf> George: I'll get Richard to send/resend the Hachette invoice
15:32:53 <liisamk> q+
15:33:09 <Bill_Kasdorf> ack laudrain
15:33:40 <Bill_Kasdorf> Luc: there's no question in anybody's mind that we need a high quality epubcheck
15:34:02 <Bill_Kasdorf> Liisa: great to see a wide variety of contributors, including an individual kicking in $20. That's great!
15:34:22 <Bill_Kasdorf> Luc: We need to keep the momentum going. We will have more information in the future when EPUB 3.2 is published.
15:35:06 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . My motto today in France is to say EPUB 3 is what to do.
15:35:29 <Bill_Kasdorf> Topic: EPUB Accessibility to ISO
15:35:43 <laudrain> topic  EPUB Accessibility submission to ISO
15:35:55 <laudrain> q?
15:35:59 <laudrain> ack liisamk
15:36:10 <Bill_Kasdorf> Tzviya: One of the members of the AB expressed concerned about the Accessibility submission to ISO which makes it sounds like W3C is not supportive.
15:36:34 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . It seems as if the process is separate from the normal W3C process.
15:37:02 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . We know we've been working closely with WAI and WCAG, but some of the wording was a red flag from that AB member.
15:37:13 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . The perception was that the ISO spec would be a
15:37:35 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . "a separate accessibility spec" as a standalone, which would be a red flag.
15:38:30 <liisamk> q+
15:38:49 <Bill_Kasdorf> Tzviya: the unfortunate consequence of some of the misleading language is that it implies that the W3C is not working on EPUB accessibility.
15:39:08 <Bill_Kasdorf> George: I don't think anybody reviewed the document. We may need to ask for an amendment to clarify.
15:39:24 <Bill_Kasdorf> Luc: Every country member of ISO has to say yes or no and may comment.
15:39:49 <jeff> q+ to comment about "comments and enhancements to the document"
15:40:45 <Bill_Kasdorf> George: Apart from some language differences (e.g., musts and shoulds) I would like to see the language from both the W3C and ISO be identical.
15:40:49 <laudrain> ack liisamk
15:40:57 <Bill_Kasdorf> Liisa: Will Makoto be at TPAC?
15:41:05 <Bill_Kasdorf> Ivan: I don't think so.
15:41:16 <Bill_Kasdorf> Liisa: I suggest a two-pronged approach.
15:41:31 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . (1) Add this to the agenda for our discussions at TPAC
15:41:49 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . (2) Somebody should reach out to Makoto to address this language issue.
15:41:56 <laudrain> q+
15:42:04 <laudrain> ack Ralph
15:42:05 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to ask if the text of the Japan submission to ISO/IEC JTC1 is available to us
15:42:19 <Bill_Kasdorf> Ralph: +1 to what Liisa just said. Is the exact text of the submission available to us?
15:42:51 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . Supposedly a quote from that text says "there are no plans to create W3C recommendations for accessibility."
15:43:15 <laudrain> IDPF (International Digital Publishing Forum) started EPUB Accessibility. IDPF is now merged with W3C. But there are no plans to create W3C recommendations for EPUB Accessibility.
15:43:27 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . This gives the impression it's nowhere on our roadmap. We have to correct that. What is correct is that there isn't current work underway.
15:43:41 <laudrain> q?
15:43:53 <laudrain> ack jeff
15:43:53 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to comment about "comments and enhancements to the document"
15:44:02 <George> q+
15:44:12 <Bill_Kasdorf> Jeff: It was useful for Luc to remind us of how the ISO process works.
15:44:30 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . An important difference between how W3C sends things to ISO and how most other parties do.
15:44:34 <Ralph> Ralph: the sentence "But there are no plans ..." is clearly subject to incorrect interpretations
15:44:53 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . W3C submits Rec to "PAS" at ISO which means they've qualified our process and approved it.
15:45:10 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . As a result, the deal we have with them is that when we submit something, it's an up/down vote.
15:45:33 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . There can be comments, but they are not addressed in ISO. They are kicked back to W3C.
15:45:59 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . If you don't use this process, then it's an ISO process and an ISO document; ISO is empowered to make changes without the involvement of the original working group.
15:46:08 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . This is an important difference.
15:46:37 <laudrain> q?
15:46:40 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . The AB member that raised the issue may have had this distinction in mind when raising the red flag about the submission.
15:47:00 <Bill_Kasdorf> Luc: There is an ISO TF in the PBG.
15:47:16 <liisamk> +1 to the ISO TF call
15:47:32 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . Just before or after TPAC I will set a call with that TF and Makoto and others to discuss this and see if there are any amendments or comments that should be done.
15:48:40 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . I am in discussion with the French representative to ISO. I will encourage them to make some comments and to address this within France.
15:49:05 <laudrain> ack George
15:49:12 <laudrain> ack laudrain
15:49:35 <Bill_Kasdorf> George: The relationship of W3C and ISO is for Recs. The Accessibility document is not a rec. That's part of the problem.
15:49:55 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . We want to continue to develop the accessibility spec hand in glove with WAI.
15:50:34 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . I wonder if Makoto put this troublesome sentence in as a stopgap measure to get this into ISO rather than discouraging that because they think further work is happening in W3C.
15:51:00 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . I will coordinate with Makoto to vote yet but remove that sentence and have the understanding that future development will be done in the W3C.
15:51:11 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . We should start with the existing PBG TF.
15:51:21 <laudrain> ack Ralph
15:52:25 <Bill_Kasdorf> Ralph: W3C's access to ISO in the PAS submission only applies to Recs. I'm very interested in having the broader discussion with the PBG not just about Accessibility but also using the W3C process for EPUB 3 as well.
15:52:34 <ivan> q+
15:52:48 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . It may be appropriate to let the current process from Japan to proceed with that one alteration but to also pursue this larger conversation.
15:52:58 <laudrain> ack Ivan
15:53:26 <Ralph> s/one alteration/one language clarification/
15:53:44 <Bill_Kasdorf> Ivan: There is always the issue of what we are allowed to refer to and what we are not. The current doc can go to ISO because there is a current ISO standard for EPUB.
15:54:14 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . If we want to update the Accessibility spec to 1.1, we get into the issue of referring to 3.2, but we need an ISO number for 3.2. That's a long discussion.
15:54:27 <laudrain> q+
15:54:36 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . If we need that, an ISO for 3.2, how do we get there? This could come back to haunt us.
15:55:09 <Bill_Kasdorf> Luc: We will continue this discussion in the TF and on another call.
15:55:26 <Bill_Kasdorf> Topic: TPAC planning
15:55:37 <laudrain> q+
15:55:58 <Bill_Kasdorf> Liisa: What do we want to do with our BG call next week to prepare? What does the WG want to do to help guide the BG?
15:56:17 <Bill_Kasdorf> Luc: It will be difficult for me to attend Tuesday's call.
15:56:17 <liisamk> Liisa can manage the call next week
15:56:18 <tzviya> here is the F2F agenda https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mt9PTcOdmrCwIsgfxbGMGjwHlUsySU01I0D4oBkSbcA/edit?usp=sharing
15:56:21 <tzviya> q+
15:56:26 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . We should definitely have this discussion in the BG.
15:56:27 <ivan> ack laudrain
15:56:29 <laudrain> ack laudrain
15:56:59 <RickJ> I'm on PTO Tuesday, and may not have connectivity.... Lisa are you available?
15:57:00 <Bill_Kasdorf> Tzviya: We tried to organize the F2F agenda to make the whole day of interest to the BG.
15:57:13 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . One of the features of the Tuesday discussion is a lot of focus on EPUB 4.
15:57:24 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . There is an open slot on Tuesday morning for the BG.
15:58:08 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . Possible topics: EPUB 3.2 implementation. How to deal with EPUB 3.2 and EPUB 4 potentially existing simultaneously. We really need input from the BG on that.
15:58:17 <laudrain> q?
15:58:17 <tzviya> ack tzviya
15:58:23 <jeff> q+
15:58:41 <laudrain> q+
15:59:04 <Bill_Kasdorf> Liisa: That sounds good. We can also get into the implications with epubcheck, and the question of why it's good to keep your files updated.
15:59:04 <laudrain> ack jeff
15:59:15 <Bill_Kasdorf> Jeff: Great topic, Tzviya, thanks.
15:59:35 <Bill_Kasdorf> . . . We're good on EPUB 3 implementation in Japan, but we don't have much representation on the BG.
15:59:42 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:00:09 <Bill_Kasdorf> Tzviya: we should ask Makoto and Daihei for input. Hopefully one of them will be on the call.
16:00:32 <Bill_Kasdorf> ack luc
16:00:57 <RickJ> +1
16:01:08 <Bill_Kasdorf> Luc: We should have a call the week after Frankfurt between the chairs to prepare. Oct. 16-18. I will send a proposal.
16:01:09 <laudrain> ack laudrain
16:01:21 <laudrain> ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:02:16 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/10/05-pbgsc-minutes.html ivan