17:45:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #widereview
17:45:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-irc
17:45:28 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #widereview
17:45:31 <mdjp> mdjp has joined #widereview
17:45:36 <timeless> scribe: timeless
17:45:39 <timeless> chair: SteveZ
17:46:07 <timeless> meeting: What is Wide Review and How do we achieve it
17:46:12 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft mintues
17:46:12 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft mintues', timeless.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:46:15 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:46:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-minutes.html timeless
17:46:17 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
17:46:18 <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2014/SessionIdeas#What_is_Wide_Review_and_How_do_we_achieve_it Session proposal
17:46:31 <Ralph> +RalphS
17:46:33 <nigel_> Present+ nigel
17:46:59 <mdjp> Present+ mdjp
17:47:26 <joanie> Present+ Joanmarie_Diggs
17:47:38 <timeless> SteveZ: this session is because there were a lot of concerns about what wide-review means in the Process 2014 document
17:47:51 <timeless> ... so I wanted to describe the rationale between Process 2005 and Process 2014
17:48:02 <timeless> ... and b) suggest things that could be done to achieve Wide Review
17:48:09 <timeless> ... and c) answer questions / issues
17:48:19 <timeless> ... no slides for this
17:48:33 <timeless> ... in decisions that went into Process 2014 (revision of Chapter 7)
17:48:47 <timeless> ... a key thing was to enable groups to begin work earlier in their process than implied in Process 2005
17:49:04 <timeless> ... over the years, we've discovered that groups begin getting reviews/testcases/implementations earlier in their process
17:49:14 <timeless> ... are more effective at getting out of the process
17:49:22 <timeless> ... one of the stages was Last Call
17:49:30 <timeless> ... which unfortunately had two things attached
17:49:50 <timeless> ... when it was created it was "The WG thinks it has completed its work, Object now or forever hold your peace"
17:50:00 <timeless> ... when the Patent Policy was created, it needed an anchor point
17:50:20 <timeless> ... they says "since, LC is when the group finished its work", "we'll attach the Patent process to that"
17:50:26 <timeless> ... but, it turns out the group wasn't finished there
17:50:45 <timeless> ... and secondly, WGs weren't serious about LC = Done
17:50:49 <timeless> ... we'd get a series of LCs
17:50:56 <timeless> ... there's an objection that the series of LCs
17:51:32 <timeless> ... you could do LC->CR->LC->CR
17:51:32 <timeless> ... because patent consideration was tied to LC
17:51:34 <timeless> ... we've transferred the Patent Commitment to CR
17:51:40 <timeless> ... it's less likely to cycle
17:51:47 <timeless> ... and if you cycle, you cycle in CR
17:51:52 <timeless> ... this had a bad side-effect
17:51:56 <timeless> ... it removed an opportunity to say
17:52:04 <timeless> ... "speak now or forever hold your peace"
17:52:08 <timeless> ... before i go down that route
17:52:14 <timeless> ... the other thing we did in terms of wide-review
17:52:37 <timeless> present+ Pete_Resnick
17:52:52 <timeless> ... reviews at LC was way too late in many circumstances
17:53:03 <timeless> ... another thing, was to drop LC as the review step
17:53:09 <timeless> ... saying "review when things are stable"
17:53:14 <timeless> ... review incrementally as things go along
17:53:23 <timeless> ... review continuously
17:53:34 <timeless> ... changing from "met requirement of making an announcement"
17:53:42 <timeless> ... to "met requirement if people have reviewed it"
17:53:59 <timeless> [ 7.2.3.1 Wide Review ]
17:54:12 <timeless> SteveZ: so instead of a check for publishing a request for review
17:54:19 <timeless> ... you have to show reviews
17:54:27 <timeless> ... one thing was Disposition of Comments (DoC)
17:54:42 <timeless> ... if all comments came from Implementers, it probably wasn't Wide Review
17:54:48 <timeless> ... there's an emphasis to reach out early
17:54:55 <timeless> ... some groups have an IG (Interest Group) list
17:54:59 <timeless> ... and send things out there
17:55:08 <timeless> ... show by getting comments from outside, that they've met the requirement
17:55:25 <timeless> ... so, change from checkbox, to actual substantive response
17:55:49 <myakura_> myakura_ has joined #widereview
17:56:24 <timeless> nigel: going through this, the W3C has a Liaison list
17:56:38 <timeless> ... in addition to the Charter dependencies, I also went to the Liaison list
17:56:57 <timeless> ... perhaps it would be beneficial to update that list to include Liaisons in the process
17:57:02 <timeless> SteveZ: you're doing Timed Text
17:57:10 <timeless> ... clearly an area where groups outside W3C have a documented interest
17:57:16 <timeless> ... other things where it would be less useful
17:57:22 <timeless> ... because the technology is more internal
17:57:34 <timeless> nigel: but then there wouldn't be anything in the liaisons page, so it wouldn't occur
17:58:17 <timeless> [ nigel will create an action in #w3process to open an issue to add liaisons to 7.2.3.1 ]
17:58:43 <timeless> present+ Barry_Leiba
17:58:52 <timeless> barry: Pete and I are IETF application areas
17:58:55 <Ralph> [Ralph departs]
17:58:59 <nigel> trackbot: Created ACTION-37 - Open an issue to add liaisons to what's considered in the wide review paragraph 7.2.3.1 [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-11-05].
17:58:59 <trackbot> Sorry, nigel, I don't understand 'trackbot: Created ACTION-37 - Open an issue to add liaisons to what's considered in the wide review paragraph 7.2.3.1 [on Steve Zilles - due 2014-11-05].'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
17:59:03 <timeless> ... i was attracted by this
17:59:07 <timeless> ... we too tried to solicit it
17:59:20 <timeless> ... people are often trying to do a semi-final review
17:59:27 <timeless> ... but resist multiple reviews
17:59:50 <timeless> SteveZ: the process we did before was largely based on IETF process at the time this was written
17:59:55 <timeless> barry: we thought as well
18:00:02 <timeless> SteveZ: what are we trying to do?
18:00:06 <timeless> ... one is dependencies
18:00:13 <timeless> ... adding liaisons is relevant there
18:00:33 <timeless> ... we're trying to advise people to, if you have a dependency, go talk to those people and work out a schedule for review
18:00:42 <timeless> ... some are dependent to horizontal WGs
18:00:47 <timeless> ... who are way overloaded w/ work
18:01:00 <timeless> ... so you want to give them time when it's stable enough to review
18:01:13 <timeless> ... but not before it's concrete -- that it can't be changed
18:01:29 <timeless> ... LC isn't that, because that's you think it's complete, what did we miss
18:01:40 <timeless> ... this is a goal, i don't how it will work out
18:01:45 <timeless> ... it's an extra burden on the Chairs
18:01:52 <timeless> barry: on the Chairs, and the reviewers
18:02:03 <timeless> SteveZ: presumably the reviewers want to review, because they don't want their ox gored
18:02:22 <timeless> barry: we're trying on a case-by-case basis, you as a chair can ask for a review from a particular group for review
18:02:25 <timeless> ... it doesn't scale
18:02:35 <timeless> ... it's only seldom requested, there's a hope
18:02:39 <timeless> ... we're only getting 15% success
18:02:47 <timeless> ... it's hard to get people to review early/intermediate versions
18:02:50 <timeless> ... we're stumped
18:02:56 <timeless> SteveZ: i'm not offering a panacea
18:03:09 <timeless> ... mentioning a discussion, the other group may come back and say "here's what's critical to us"
18:03:24 <timeless> ... so you know what might trigger them, to be more successful in getting reviews
18:03:33 <timeless> ... In our WG, we'll get a Review request, and the answer is no
18:03:54 <timeless> ... unless you can get something likely to be in the document that's likely to be a problem, no one wants to look at it
18:04:07 <timeless> ... hopefully conversations may lead to better results, than just throwing it over the wall
18:04:11 <timeless> barry: agreed
18:04:19 <timeless> SteveZ: WG members may be active and doing this 24 hours a day
18:04:23 <timeless> ... other reviewers aren't
18:04:31 <timeless> ... you're lucky to get one review, you need to make it count
18:04:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #widereview
18:04:46 <timeless> ... when you clearly have an identified dependency, you can reach out
18:04:50 <timeless> ... the other thing suggested
18:05:05 <timeless> ... fantasi had an action item to propose
18:05:16 <timeless> ... something to help w/ the review process
18:05:33 <timeless> ... we've observed that the development of a standard doesn't progress at a uniform rate
18:05:42 <timeless> ... some pieces (often core) progress faster than others
18:05:50 <timeless> ... it would be useful to mark sections of the document w/ stability
18:05:59 <timeless> ... CSS developed a system called Shepherd
18:06:08 <timeless> ... that scans through our documents, we have markup, and ToC
18:06:15 <timeless> ... and our test-database is driven off those IDs
18:06:22 <timeless> ... we use IDs, section numbers may change
18:06:27 <timeless> ... IDs don't change as much
18:06:46 <timeless> ... we can automatically generate a version of the document indicating which tests have passed in which browsers
18:06:57 <timeless> ... it wouldn't take too much effort to do this, if we could indicate stability
18:07:04 <timeless> ... to automatically generate section warnings
18:07:17 <timeless> ... and if changes are tied to ids, we could include links to change fields
18:07:32 <timeless> ... for people reviewing it more than once, they can see which sections have changed recently
18:07:37 <timeless> ... since they last saw it
18:07:45 <timeless> ... and therefore see what they need to re-review
18:07:53 <timeless> ... trying to make the documents reviewer friendly is another piece
18:07:58 <timeless> ... we don't have that technology in place
18:08:01 <timeless> ... there's no funding
18:08:10 <timeless> ... it's a couple of CSS WG members working on it
18:08:12 <nigel> +1 to making it easier for people to answer the question "how stable is this [section of this] document?"
18:08:16 <timeless> ... we have it for testing level
18:08:21 <timeless> ... we can in principle extend it
18:08:34 <timeless> barry: are all W3C drafts developed with the same markup
18:08:39 <timeless> timeless: there are 2 that are used
18:08:41 <timeless> barry: that helps
18:08:54 <timeless> ... we have many different
18:08:59 <timeless> SteveZ: i understand you have an effort to try to standardize
18:09:04 <timeless> barry: yes
18:09:19 <timeless> SteveZ: there's a wiki, has most of the information that I said
18:09:28 <timeless> ... except why the process changed
18:09:52 <timeless> ... in the previous session, nigel pointed out it'd be useful to say why the process changed
18:10:04 <timeless> barry: in IETF, groups will write a document, and not know who their dependencies are
18:10:19 <timeless> ... they'll stick something in, and not realize that they've created a dependency
18:10:22 <nigel> s/why the process changed/what the goals of wide review are
18:10:27 <timeless> ... getting it wrong, they'll break things
18:10:38 <timeless> ... getting them to know that when they say URI/UTF,
18:10:41 <timeless> ... that they need to consult
18:10:48 <timeless> SteveZ: we have more process in forming a Group
18:10:54 <timeless> ... we say a Charter needs to list dependencies
18:11:01 <timeless> ... Horizontal WGs need to review charters
18:11:06 <timeless> ... doesn't really address your problem
18:11:16 <timeless> ... because Charters are approved by AC members as a whole
18:11:18 <timeless> ... there's a Vote
18:11:39 <timeless> ... there's a better chance that the AC member looks at a Charter to see if a reviewer thinks there's a relation
18:11:43 <timeless> barry: we have a similar process
18:11:52 <timeless> ... but someone says "this string is a character encoded in UTF-8"
18:12:07 <timeless> ... all of a sudden it has comparison
18:12:07 <timeless> ... but it wasn't in the Charter
18:12:25 <timeless> pete: often in a routing protocol
18:12:57 <timeless> barry: we have this problem, you have this problem, we're both trying to solve it
18:13:06 <timeless> SteveZ: no, we're both doing experiments to try to improve this
18:13:15 <timeless> q+ to talk about flagging content
18:13:25 <timeless> nigel: you talked about typical duration for review
18:13:48 <timeless> [ Working Groups should announce to other W3C Working Groups as well as the general public, ]
18:13:49 <timeless> [ especially those affected by this specification, a proposal to enter Candidate Recommendation (for example in approximately four weeks). ]
18:13:57 <timeless> nigel: when you talk to industry bodies
18:14:01 <timeless> ... they might not meet very often
18:14:10 <timeless> ... and their secretarial skills aren't great
18:14:15 <timeless> ... they might sit down in six months
18:14:21 <timeless> ... it probably conflicts with a good practice
18:14:34 <timeless> ... to state in the document when the end of review period is
18:14:40 <timeless> SteveZ: i think that review end is required
18:14:47 <resnick> resnick has joined #widereview
18:14:51 <timeless> nigel: reviewers will see the document after the review ends
18:14:55 <timeless> ... and not know what to do
18:15:08 <timeless> SteveZ: for a Liaison, you should have set this up
18:16:23 <timeless> timeless: is there a stopword list that you could write a bot for?
18:16:28 <timeless> s/is/barry, is/
18:16:31 <timeless> barry: for some, yes
18:18:40 <SteveZ> consider: https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview
18:18:41 <timeless> timeless: types of reviews
18:19:02 <timeless> barry: if we flag "this mentions UTF8", that's easier to get someone to review
18:19:04 <timeless> ... since they only have to look for UTF8 in the document
18:19:18 <timeless> pete: security has been good to have a directorate
18:19:24 <timeless> ... they farm out documents to people
18:19:28 <timeless> barry: that works at LC
18:19:36 <timeless> ... the area has asked about early reviews
18:19:48 <timeless> ... and Directorate has said NO
18:19:57 <timeless> pete: because they'd get double their work
18:20:04 <timeless> SteveZ: i discussed that w/ Accessibility
18:20:11 <timeless> ... and they said it creates as many problems as it solves
18:20:28 <timeless> SteveZ: this document (DocumentReview)
18:20:33 <timeless> barry: we could have written that
18:20:50 <timeless> barry: we can get more than one shot for a particular document
18:20:58 <timeless> ... but if we try for lots of documents, it would collapse
18:21:16 <timeless> SteveZ: if the reviewing group indicates the kinds of concerns the chair should be aware of
18:21:25 <timeless> ... he may go ask for advice earlier if he sees those red flags being raised
18:21:36 <timeless> ... i think opening dialogue will make this work better
18:21:41 <timeless> nigel: back to time-frames
18:21:47 <timeless> ... how do you prevent that from happening
18:21:54 <timeless> ... the other question for the WG
18:22:03 <timeless> ... what is the status for comments after Review closes
18:22:16 <timeless> ... you got a bunch of comments that came after
18:22:36 <timeless> s/after/during and you got out of LC/
18:22:42 <timeless> ... then you get more comments
18:22:51 <timeless> SteveZ: there's an official answer and an unofficial answer
18:22:55 <timeless> ... there's a risk of a DoS
18:23:09 <timeless> ... practically, if the problems are real, the WG should want to try to fix it
18:23:12 <timeless> s/it/them/
18:23:23 <timeless> ... if someone feels they're being unfairly treated, there's an appeals process
18:23:28 <timeless> nigel: worst-case scenario
18:23:34 <timeless> ... comments come @ CR
18:23:39 <timeless> ... you decide to go to PR
18:23:45 <timeless> ... you have comments w/o DoC
18:23:53 <timeless> ... it'd be clear if you should have a DoC on all, or all
18:24:06 <timeless> SteveZ: typically the DoC would be postponed to a future version
18:24:29 <timeless> nigel: so there's a requirement on the WG to make a decision (postponed) on the comment
18:24:38 <timeless> SteveZ: there's a default-decision "came after comment deadline"
18:24:45 <timeless> ... you could record that w/o the WG making a decision
18:24:51 <timeless> ... good practice would be that you should note the comment
18:25:07 <timeless> ... and the person noting should respond saying "i think the WG should postpone, do you agree?"
18:25:17 <timeless> ... we've had cases where a group was totally overloaded
18:29:48 <Ralph_> Ralph_ has joined #widereview
18:31:42 <timeless> barry: we have who are people who aren't totally abusive, but they keep drawing the discussion out beyond where it makes sense
18:31:42 <timeless> SteveZ: these are all judgement calls, you don't want to make rules that don't make them judgement
18:31:42 <timeless> mdjp: github comments
18:31:42 <timeless> ... we have lots of issues, they're commented on outside W3C
18:31:42 <timeless> ... that's continuous
18:31:42 <timeless> SteveZ: if you have a way of quickly summarizing that, i think that would be perfectly adequate
18:31:42 <timeless> ... there's no requirement for an official wide review
18:31:42 <timeless> ... if you can provide evidence
18:31:43 <timeless> ... i believe you've established there's been wide review
18:31:43 <timeless> ... it's important to show people beyond implementers
18:31:43 <timeless> ... and the key groups are in that set
18:31:44 <timeless> mdjp: you can identify logs where you have gaps
18:31:44 <timeless> ... and you can target those groups
18:31:44 <timeless> barry: now one who's expert in that has reviewed it
18:31:45 <timeless> SteveZ: automating is great
18:31:45 <timeless> ... we're not trying to make work
18:31:45 <timeless> ... we're trying to make sure the right eyes have seen it
18:31:46 <timeless> barry: a lot of this is having Chairs do the right thing
18:31:46 <timeless> ... and training the chairs
18:31:46 <timeless> ... what do you do in the line of Chair Training?
18:31:47 <timeless> SteveZ: not much/enough
18:31:47 <timeless> ... this is the only SDO i know of where an appointment doesn't involve Chair training
18:31:47 <timeless> barry: there's Chair training they sometimes do before the meeting
18:31:48 <timeless> ... and there's a Wednesday lunch for Chair training
18:31:48 <timeless> s/before/the Sunday before/
18:32:23 <timeless> SteveZ: w3c has recently established a number of Chair Training Phone Calls
18:32:27 <timeless> ... for topics relevant to Chairs
18:32:29 <timeless> ... Tools
18:32:33 <timeless> ... Human Element
18:32:36 <timeless> ... How to be Effective
18:32:40 <nigel> http://www.w3.org/2014/Talks/chairs-part4/#/
18:32:49 <timeless> mdjp: As a new chair, these sessions would have been really useful before the F2F
18:33:04 <nigel> http://www.w3.org/2014/06/17-chairing-minutes.html
18:33:05 <timeless> ... without the crossover to the outgoing chair, it would have been really difficult to run the meetings
18:33:29 <timeless> s/fantasi/fantasai/
18:33:34 <nigel> http://www.w3.org/2014/04/24-chairing-minutes
18:33:36 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:33:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-minutes.html timeless
18:33:57 <nigel> nigel: There are others too - I'm not sure if they're collated onto a single page for ease of reference
18:34:00 <SteveZ2> SteveZ2 has joined #widereview
18:34:01 <fantasai> fantasai has joined #widereview
18:34:07 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:34:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-minutes.html timeless
18:34:27 <timeless> SteveZ2: no rules, and talk to the people you need to talk to
18:34:31 <timeless> s/SteveZ2/SteveZ/G
18:34:45 <timeless> nigel: you mentioned if all reviews are from implementers, that's not enough, it's not wide
18:34:53 <timeless> ... but evidence of implementation can be evidence of review
18:35:00 <timeless> ... since you can't implement without reading
18:35:06 <timeless> SteveZ2: the way our process is
18:35:17 <timeless> ... you weren't going to get anywhere unless there were implementations anyway
18:35:31 <timeless> ... but it isn't the reviewers we're concerned about
18:35:49 <timeless> ... it's dealing with the communities that could be disrupted or disenfranchized if this becomes a standard
18:36:14 <nigel> timeless: I've dealt with implementers who see problems and ignore them
18:36:18 <nigel> fantasai: +1
18:36:26 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #widereview
18:36:43 <nigel> timeless: They pick an answer silently, without notifying anyone. They do /something/ but nobody realises it's not what was intended in the spec until much later.
18:36:51 <nigel> ... Most implementers aren't noisy like that.
18:37:11 <nigel> fantasai: An implementer who says something would be counted for wide review evidence
18:37:32 <SteveZ2> Timeless: there are implementers that will just jump over problems without reporting them so implementations are not total proof of review
18:37:33 <nigel> timeless: When browser devs implement something what actually matters is usage in websites.
18:37:44 <nigel> ... Website devs are even worse than browser devs!
18:37:55 <nigel> scribeNick: nigel
18:38:28 <nigel> timeless: You have to go and look at website code to see if they've put nasty comments in about your spec!
18:38:28 <nigel> ... It's a nasty thing to go and hunt those comments down.
18:38:47 <nigel> ... We've begged for years for this kind of feedback, and we're lucky to get feedback from 5 sites, out of billions!
18:38:57 <nigel> ... A way to harvest those comments would be beneficial.
18:39:26 <nigel> ... A way to demonstrate searches on stackoverflow, etc would be good.
18:39:49 <nigel> ... Conversely if people don't comment on the likely sites e.g. stackoverflow, then that may be evidence that there isn't a problem
18:40:05 <SteveZ2> timeless: reviewing the comments in code on key websites and/or on stack overflow will show evidence of wide review
18:40:47 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:40:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-minutes.html timeless
18:41:03 <timeless> i/fantasai: An implementer/scribe: nigel/
18:41:06 <timeless> s/scribeNick: nigel//
18:41:12 <timeless> scribe: timeless
18:41:32 <timeless> nigel: W3C generally wants to make
18:41:42 <timeless> ... everyone wants to include "the general public" in "wide review"
18:41:48 <timeless> ... the best way to make things visible
18:41:54 <timeless> ... is "the w3c home page"
18:42:08 <timeless> ... if you put things in /TR/, you can ask staff to put things on the w3 home page
18:42:18 <timeless> ... it's been proposed to have a Blog or something for announcing reviews
18:42:28 <timeless> SteveZ2: the DocumentReview wiki documents making reviews happen
18:42:37 <timeless> ... it's asking the W3C to make a mailing list
18:42:42 <timeless> ... there's an issue of what the name should be
18:42:52 <timeless> ... i think that will happen
18:42:56 <timeless> ... it's not last-call
18:43:08 <timeless> ... the intent is that you identify what you want reviewed in the Status section
18:43:23 <timeless> ... because it may not be the whole document, perhaps just a recent change
18:43:30 <timeless> nigel: some organizations have an "Official Journal"
18:43:34 <timeless> ... it's widely known to the world
18:43:40 <timeless> ... a clear statement from W3 that this is the place
18:43:53 <timeless> ... your XXXs should be looking there
18:43:58 <timeless> ... boring, but effective
18:44:04 <joanie> q+ To suggest Twitter and hashtag that stateholders are likely to see. (Not a joke)
18:44:06 <timeless> SteveZ2: the issue of publicizing this list is known to Team
18:44:12 <timeless> ack timeless
18:44:12 <Zakim> timeless, you wanted to talk about flagging content
18:44:25 <timeless> ack joanie
18:44:25 <Zakim> joanie, you wanted to suggest Twitter and hashtag that stateholders are likely to see. (Not a joke)
18:44:42 <timeless> joanie: i did this by ranting, and i got a lot of replies
18:45:02 <timeless> ... if your stakeholders are web developers, and spit out a single tweet with a link to the document and a few appropriate hashtags
18:45:12 <timeless> ... a couple of stakeholders will retweet
18:45:30 <timeless> SteveZ2: we should consider using all channels that are available
18:45:53 <timeless> joanie: i've used Twitter to complain about web developers doing things
18:46:05 <timeless> ... and then developers reply explaining why they did it
18:46:15 <timeless> SteveZ2: two other things in consideration
18:46:18 <timeless> ... besides the ML
18:46:28 <timeless> ... one is a dashboard page listing which active reviews
18:46:32 <timeless> ... and secondly a Calendar
18:46:35 <timeless> ... listing reviews closing
18:46:44 <timeless> ... I think, if we could automate it
18:46:51 <timeless> ... different views of the same information
18:47:08 <timeless> ... you have an announcement, it shows up in the right places
18:47:09 <timeless> fantasai: CSS WG
18:47:14 <timeless> ... W3 will announce it
18:47:21 <timeless> ... we'll announce it on our blog
18:47:26 <timeless> ... we'll send it to places
18:47:31 <timeless> ... we'll tweet a link
18:47:46 <timeless> ... we make our editors write the announcement, because we want them to explain the key points
18:47:55 <timeless> ... otherwise, W3 staff does boilerplate
18:48:06 <timeless> ... there's people out there, you want their feedback, try to get it
18:48:24 <timeless> SteveZ2: developing an Interest community is a valuable way to get comments from others than implementers
18:48:34 <timeless> ... not the public exactly, but people who are following
18:48:48 <timeless> ... for CSS, it's www-style
18:48:55 <timeless> ... but we can get answers in the 50s
18:48:57 <timeless> ... when we ask
18:49:06 <timeless> fantasai: i think we'd benefit from a less technical channel
18:49:11 <timeless> ... lower traffic
18:49:27 <timeless> ... people have wanted to participate, but don't want to subscribe to the ML
18:49:31 <timeless> ... it's high traffic
18:49:37 <timeless> ... high signal to noise
18:49:43 <timeless> SteveZ2: we tag messages
18:49:50 <timeless> ... you can sort, i consciously sort
18:49:54 <timeless> ... i don't do animation
18:50:02 <timeless> fantasai: we ask people to tag w/ the spec shortname
18:50:09 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:50:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-minutes.html timeless
18:50:22 <timeless> SteveZ2: i wish to thank our scribe, immensely
18:50:25 <timeless> barry: indeed
18:50:33 <timeless> SteveZ2: and i'd like to thank everyone for participating
18:50:47 <timeless> ... i'm trying to do the process, not as written, but how it is/should be in practice...
18:50:52 <timeless> ... a very different question
18:50:56 <timeless> [ Adjourned ]
18:50:58 <timeless> [ Lunch ]
18:51:01 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:51:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-minutes.html timeless
18:52:04 <timeless> s/<SteveZ> Timeless:/<nigel> timeless:/
18:52:24 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:52:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/10/29-widereview-minutes.html timeless
20:05:52 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #widereview
20:19:56 <timeless> timeless has left #widereview
21:10:36 <Zakim> Zakim has left #widereview
21:28:24 <Ralph> Ralph has left #widereview
22:49:12 <myakura> myakura has joined #widereview