Meeting minutes
tony: no meeting on the 23rd, IETF week
<wseltzer> nadalin: No meeting March 23, IETF
tim: June 9 for meeting in San Francisco hosted by MSFT
tony: draft charter?
wendy: hoping for something by end of March
wendy: question that came from Advisory committee
… licensing issues. Charter uses less permissive w3c doc license
… can't copy to make specification. anti-forking
… LE, if something goes wrong, can we still be under a license. Not likely outcome.
… helping the in discussion. AC asking should we re-license specs?
… this group has non-forking license
… raising question here
… should we bring back discussion to AC discussion?
...let me know
wendy: can send your legal folks to come to W3C meeting
tony: do we do anything?
wendy: no
agl: if it is not disrupting, my choice, most permissive license
wendy: would could update without a big production
tony: would be part of new chater
wendy: pissibly
possibly
<wseltzer> Document License
tony: what was your choice
<wseltzer> Software and Document License
tony: no need to be overly restrictive
tony: any other preferences
wendy: there was some preference for anti-forking
… so there should be one spec
tony: how do we proceed?
… change, update, adopt new licensing?
wendy: I can put details into github issue
tony: OK
wendy: could make change without another review
tony: OK open an issue
tony: open PRs
https://
elundberg: nothing to do here.
jeffH: we don't explain use cases.
shane: comes down to policy of the RP
… that is subtly missed
elundberg: do we need to make it more apparent
shane: not sure it is the right place to do that.
jeffH: in create, the RP can set it; client decides what to send, it can be used or not used
shane: we can write a reply on the PR
… and see if the commenter has their question answered
https://
tim: I did a few updates.
tony: discussion?
https://
https://
matt: from google point of view, we will get on this PR
Matt: PR in rough state so far
… not sure of next steps.
martin: should return objects.
agl: can we reasonably do that?
martin: we can reasonably support that
matt: I am optimistic
tony: will you work on this one?
matt: will work on this
… I was hoping to define return values
… with specific internals
… do we need to deal with something like that?
https://
tony: what is the action here
shane: unless there is intent to implement, looks like not, so maybe don't spend time on it.
tony: don
… don't hear talk to get on this
agl: I don't see action on this issue
tonuy: close? more time?
… any concerns?
… we don't have good feedback
jeffH: are we thinking this is speculative, but interesting
… doesn't seem to be interest in L3
agl: is interesting, but not near the top
tony: could move to futures.
agl: sure