<Thaddeus> +Present

<scribe> scribe: becka11y

<clapierre> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/

<clapierre> module 1: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html

<clapierre> module 2: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html#introduction

<clapierre> module 3: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/tools/index.html

I noted that the Status portion of each document still refers to the documents as part of the ARIA working group - we need to fix that to point to APA

roy: assign to me to fix

charles: will create a git hub issue

go over any issues that have come up and all pull requests if any.

Charles: Thaddeus has created a number of pull requests; Roy also made some changes

Roy: I merged issued #95 about link and fixed as well as #94

Charles: let’s look at pull request 94

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/94/commits

Charles: looks like some grammar changes; need to fix URL to explainer; some changes on the ed note?

Thaddeus: there are several places in the docs that are hard to understand grammatically; Michael has generally suggested iterative feature requests; someone can review and accept; each pull request only reflects a portion of the document; I have allowed edits on the pull request to review can make any necessary changes

Charles: only found simple spacing error; only substantive change was to the abstract - removed a duplicate paragraph
... Does everyone understand what we are trying to do this week?

Sharon: trying to catch up after being away

Charles: end game is to release all 4 of our documents as either an update or first PWD (in case of modules 2 & 3) before TPAC
... need to get things published by next week for TPAC; explainer and module 1 are just updates; Modules 2 & 3 are first PWD and so need to go thru CFS with our WG (APA); Janina will try to fast track this for us if we have the documents by this Wednesday
... Lisa thinks we just need improvements to the introductions; and editor’s note / call for help/ warning that we haven’t selected an implementation format, yet
... If look at drafts - there is a note about this and there are links into our comparison documents
... What do people think? Are there any concerns about publishing?

<JF> +1 to Thaddeus

Thaddeus: concerned that some of the content is not well written; often hard to read and needs a grammatical review; There are some serious grammatical errors - duplicated paragraphs; Perhaps divide up the work and have people take different documents;

Charles: We should be in good shape for Module 1 and explainer since they have been published once

Thaddeus: also concerned about those - they have duplicated paragraphs and are a bit embarrassing to the group

JF: agree with Thaddeus; will take on one of the documents to review

Charles: need to be done by Wednesday so can get consensus by Friday noon, and leave Roy enough time to get everything prepared and published

Roy: yes, believe that can accomplish that.

Charles: APA needs 48 hours for CFC - need to start CFC by noon on Wednesday

JF: but this is just editorial; How long do we need to clean this up?

Thaddeus: I’m not sure we have ever agreed on the tools?

Charles: we can add an editor’s note for those type of issues.

JF: prefer to focus on Explainer and Module 1 since they have been looked at more

Charles: need more eyes on it and important to keep on the timeline; this doesn’t have to be perfect but we do want to put best foot forward;

Charles; would be good if we each pick one of the modules to review. We have Becky, John, Thaddeus, Sharron and myself. Would like each of us to take one document each and create a pull request with changes.

Charles: need this to be completed by end of day Tuesday
... will merge the pull requests early Wed. morning so people can review and we can get CFC started

Becky: I created a branch for some grammatical errors for the explainer

Charles: please create a pull request so either Roy or I can merge after this call
... John will take the Help module; Sharon will take module 1
... Thaddeus will have tools; Becky will have explainer
... if you need to include editor’s note there is a class for that: ednote (I think)
... recap who will be reviewing each module: JF - help module; Sharon - Module 1; Thaddeus - tools module; Becky - explainer
... and everyone can commit to completing the review by end of Tuesday?

All confirmed;

Thaddeus: Will Charles approve the pull requests? How does Charles want to provide any feedback on the pull requests?

Charles: will try to make edits within the pull requests or will contact the editor directly via email;
... may not be on the call next week - have a conflicting meeting;

adjourn for today. Thanks

rrsagend, make minutes

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/John will take help/John will take the Help module/
Default Present: JF, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, clapierre, MichaelC, janina, Becka11y
Present: JF LisaSeemanKestenbaum clapierre MichaelC janina Becka11y Thaddeus
Found Scribe: becka11y
Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)