<jar> looking at some old stuff, like http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswTopicsBrainstormPage

<jar> and http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2007/11/05-afternoon-minutes

Wrapping up

jar: We should write down what we've done and let other things go for the next generation.
... want to work out process for wrapping up. i should be able to work on it later in Nov and Dec.

dbooth: you're proposing that we document what we've done and wrap up?

jar: y, write up what happened and declare victory.
... I don't see anything changing that will make the group more effective. i'm volunteering to write something, and then we need to figure out who's going to be a signer to the report.
... and disagreements can be noted in the report also.

<jar> ack [IPcaller]

nathan: i agree on this approach. i think everything that could be discussed -- all options. So the best we can do is put it together in a report w steps that have been taken, then perhaps another document with our own opinions.

alan: doc should be consensus view, with all views represented.

<jar> alanr: one doc, consensus view (including statements of the form "A thinks X, but B disagrees" but not limited to non-consensus)

dbooth: I think one document would make more sense than more than one.

<jar> alanr: work it through on a wiki, as OWL did

jar: I'll produce a draft, then if someone else agrees then they sign, if the disagree than they may change something or note differences

<jar> http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport

dbooth: I agree a wiki would be more efficient and would encourage more participation.

<jar> alanr: collect the best of the email exchanges

alan: good first start would be collect the best email

<nathan> we should identify them..

dbooth: so the model would be that the document would reflect consensus views and differeing views.

<jar> i think there are 3 things. 1. consensus, 2, set of differing views, 3. single views that others don't agree or disagree

nathan: should identify all the views and see which ones are in agreement and disagreement quickly.

<jar> queue please

<jar> 3 voices talking at once

<nathan> yes - what is our job, to come to a consensus, or to document all views?

alan: whether something is consensus or dissent is irrelevant if it is documentary. We merely need to agree on well-representing the views.

<nathan> +1 alan

<jar> whether it's consensus or not is not so important when it's a documentary. important thing is representation

dbooth: sounds good.

<nathan> imho - http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options and http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Requirements both document things rather well

jar: looking through email threads anyone can do.

<jar> I started http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport a while back… use that as the root and make changes

nathan: I shall try to make a start going through email, document, and put things together for the report for the next couple weeks.

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask who will start a wiki page?

<nathan> http://www.w3.org/wiki/AwwswFinalReport

<jar> aim for draft worth reading on 12/21

jar: TAG mtg Jan 4. would be nice to have something 2 weeks before that (Dec 21).
... re deliverables, some of the more important things i've learned during this group are in the documents I've given out in the past.

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/latest/

<jar> my favorite outcomes if awwsws: (1) http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/09/referential-use.html

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/

<nathan> likewise (1) referential use

<jar> (2) that one, ir/latest/

<nathan> also two wiki pages are most useful (HttpRange14Requirements, HttpRange14Options)

<nathan> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Requirements

jar: since those docs do not command consensus in the group, i'll have to say theyre my personal views

nathan: do we have consensus on the httpRagne-14 requirements?

jar: i haveen't shown that page to anyway -- only you.
... we don't have a clean dividing line between this group's work and the TAG group. Task Groups are not supposed to produce normative documents.

alan: they can't.

dbooth: but anybody can make proposals, including a task group.
... i thinkn it's a matter of making the doc status very clear

jar: but it's moot because we don't have agreement on any SHOULDs anyway.

alan: this is easy to deal with. if there are sections that propose normative words, then they get quoted.

jar: want to avoid the appearance of important work going on behind closed doors.

<jar> alanr: Easy to deal with. If some of the views are phrased normatively, then just quote them "Joe thinks everyone SHOULD do x"

<jar> … no boilerplate

alan: I agree it should be clear from the status. Don't use the boiler plate 2119 of what these words mean, etc.

<nathan> documenting what can be done != recommending what to do

jar: I do all this work, and it could be couched as AWWSW and it could be TAG, and I don't know how to draw the line.

alan: it's your line to draw.

<nathan> alan, +1

+1

<jar> alanr: There was this discussion, then JAR went off and made this doc for the TAG

dbooth: What else should we cover today?

jar: if anything, trying to set the scope better. what should not go it? what should we not forget to put in?

<jar> alanr: The scope is determined by email & wiki

alan: any work i would do would be driven by the email stream, the log, etc. Gathering links to those. That should clearly say what the scope is. There shouldn't be any new subject matter that isn't recorded in these forums.

<jar> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HttpRange14Options

jar: I've been doing httpRange-14 requirments drafting. Trying to get to ... bothered by HTML5 change request. They have a process for making changes to teh draft. Someone files a bug, someone makes a change request, and then something happens.
... If you apply that process to httpRange-14, we need to rake in change requests, each w a champion, and then see which one wins.

alan: But we haven't done that, and we're reporting what we've done, so that's out of scope.

jar: I agree, just alerting you to what i've been doing, as one of my TAG actions.

<jar> alanr: Amending hr14a is out of scope for awwsw

<jar> jar: it's for tag, I thought people on this call ought to know

dbooth: i look forward to reading it.

<jar> who's going to review the email stream? … just nathan or others as well?

dbooth: maybe we should all look through email and pick out things we think are important.

alan: redundant for us all to look exhaustively at email.

jar: divide and conquer by year?
... 4 people and 4 years.

<jar> 2008, 9, 10, 11

dbooth: I'm game for that if others want to do that.

<jar> alanr: first pass by nathan r?

alan: i heard nathan say he'll go through them anyway. he should do first pass, then we'll review and comment.

nathan: okay

<jar> sounds good

dbooth: great

<nathan> cool - good meeting, thanks :)

ADJOURNED

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: dbooth
Inferring Scribes: dbooth
Default Present: +1.617.581.aaaa, jar, dbooth, +1.716.810.aabb, +1.716.810.aacc, nathan
Present: AlanR Nathan DBooth Jonathan_Rees
Got date from IRC log name: 25 Oct 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/10/25-awwsw-minutes.html
People with action items: