14:59:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #w3process
14:59:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-irc
14:59:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be Process
14:59:59 <Zakim> ok, trackbot, I see AB_(PROCESS)10:00AM already started
15:00:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference
15:00:00 <trackbot> Date: 13 January 2015
15:00:07 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:00:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:00:09 <timeless> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:00:13 <SteveZ> SteveZ has joined #w3process
15:00:28 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:00:34 <chaals> zakim, [ip is me
15:00:34 <Zakim> +chaals; got it
15:00:36 <timeless> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:00:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Josh_Soref, chaals
15:00:39 <timeless> Zakim, mute me
15:00:39 <Zakim> sorry, timeless, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:00:52 <chaals> zakim, timeless is Josh_Soref
15:00:52 <Zakim> sorry, chaals, I do not recognize a party named 'timeless'
15:01:02 <chaals> zakim, Josh_Soref is timeless
15:01:02 <Zakim> +timeless; got it
15:01:14 <chaals> zakim, mute timeless
15:01:14 <Zakim> timeless should now be muted
15:01:26 <Zakim> +SteveZ
15:01:36 <timeless> scribe: timeless
15:01:41 <chaals> zakim, agenda?
15:01:41 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:01:48 <jeff> jeff has joined #w3process
15:02:07 <Zakim> +Jeff
15:02:14 <timeless> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jan/0023.html
15:02:20 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:02:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:02:30 <timeless> chair: SteveZ
15:02:45 <timeless> topic: Review Open Action Items
15:02:50 <SteveZ> zakim, who is on the call?
15:02:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see timeless (muted), chaals, SteveZ, Jeff
15:03:27 <dsinger> dsinger has joined #w3process
15:03:28 <SteveZ> https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/actions/open
15:03:57 <Zakim> +dsinger
15:04:52 <timeless> [ There are 0 open actions. ]
15:05:15 <timeless> Topic: interim TAG election due to two participants from same organization
15:05:34 <timeless> Do we agree that CfC on not requiring an interim TAG election due to two participants from same organization reached a consensus and the text should be in Process2015?
15:05:49 <timeless> SteveZ: during an AB call/online, chaals thought we had reached a consensus
15:05:53 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:06:05 <timeless> SteveZ: i believe we have reached a consensus, and chaals documented that in
15:06:21 <timeless> ... the public-w3process ML
15:06:30 <timeless> ... but i assume chaals would like a resolution to that effect
15:06:36 <timeless> chaals: it would be helpful to have that
15:06:45 <timeless> ... i'd like the resolution to note the recorded objection
15:06:48 <timeless> SteveZ: that's fair
15:07:44 <timeless> dsinger: chaals remind me what your objection was
15:07:53 <timeless> chaals: in the context of a broader set of changes, i think it makes sense
15:08:16 <timeless> ... but this alone, further enables the TAG to produce group-think
15:08:31 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
15:09:24 <mchampion> mchampion has joined #w3process
15:09:49 <mchampion> are we waiting for critical mass?
15:09:56 <timeless> s/are we waiting for critical mass?//
15:12:09 <dsinger> one is http://www.w3.org/mid/19561416928584@webcorp02e.yandex-team.ru
15:12:29 <dsinger> and http://www.w3.org/mid/52681418358742@webcorp02h.yandex-team.ru
15:12:36 <SteveZ> RESOLUTION: CfC for change to TAG participation acheived Consensus with one objection: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/att-0039/00-part
15:12:45 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:12:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:13:13 <timeless> RESOLUTION: CfC for change to TAG participation achieved Consensus with one objection: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/att-0039/00-part
15:13:36 <timeless> s|RESOLUTION: CfC for change to TAG participation achieved Consensus with one objection: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/att-0039/00-part||
15:15:25 <timeless> RESOLUTION: CfC for change to TAG participation achieved Consensus with one objection: XX0
15:15:35 <timeless> s|XX0|http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/att-0039/00-part XX1|
15:15:42 <timeless> s|XX1|http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Dec/att-0038/00-part http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/att-0173/00-part|
15:15:45 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:15:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-minutes.html timeless
15:16:32 <timeless> topic: ISSUE-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date
15:16:39 <timeless> issue-140?
15:16:39 <trackbot> issue-140 -- The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date -- open
15:16:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140
15:17:20 <timeless> chaals: i dropped paragraphs 4 & 5
15:17:26 <timeless> SteveZ: the remaining issue is the include-list
15:17:39 <timeless> ... jeff had made the point that it should list some key things that the director is responsible for
15:17:47 <timeless> ... chaals suggested using the existing list
15:17:55 <timeless> ... but it has some major/minor things
15:18:05 <timeless> chaals: i also suggested that whatever is there is not that critical
15:19:23 <SteveZ> Changes in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#Team make sense to me
15:19:45 <timeless> SteveZ: given that draft, we can close issue-140
15:20:19 <timeless> issue-140: Changes in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html#Team make sense to me
15:20:19 <trackbot> Notes added to issue-140 The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date.
15:20:19 <chaals> close issue-140
15:20:19 <trackbot> Closed issue-140.
15:20:37 <jeff> q+ with some minor terminology comments
15:20:41 <jeff> q+
15:21:03 <dsinger> I am surprised that the Director’s role in Formal Objections is not one of the more prominent examples
15:21:09 <timeless> ack jeff
15:21:22 <timeless> jeff: in the note about the institutions
15:21:23 <timeless> ... JSA
15:21:33 <timeless> ... is now called "hosting agreements"
15:21:36 <timeless> chaals: i'll make the change
15:21:52 <timeless> s/JSA/JSA [joint sponsorship contracts]/
15:22:15 <timeless> s|I am surprised that the Director’s role in Formal Objections is not one of the more prominent examples|
15:22:16 <timeless> dsinger: I am surprised that the Director’s role in Formal Objections is not one of the more prominent examples
15:22:23 <timeless> chaals: yeah, i'll put it in
15:22:39 <timeless> ... it's there somewhere in tie-breaker, but i'll change the wording
15:23:20 <timeless> topic: ISSUE-145: Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc
15:23:38 <timeless> s|topic: ISSUE-145: Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc||
15:24:12 <timeless> topic: ISSUE-145: Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc
15:24:12 <timeless> issue-145?
15:24:12 <timeless> For this and for Issue-140 check whether the resolutions have been implemented.
15:24:12 <trackbot> issue-145 -- Clean up mentions of W3C Chair, COO etc -- pending review
15:24:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/145
15:24:47 <timeless> [ chaals will move issue-140 to pending-review ]
15:24:59 <timeless> SteveZ: we'll leave this for now (following chaals 's model for issue-140)
15:25:04 <jeff> q+
15:25:06 <timeless> topic: ISSUE-141: Improve Errata management in W3C
15:25:10 <timeless> ISSUE-141?
15:25:10 <trackbot> ISSUE-141 -- Improve Errata management in W3C -- open
15:25:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141
15:25:23 <timeless> SteveZ: there was a short discussion in yesterday's AB call
15:25:38 <timeless> ... jeff and myself thought we had reached a consensus
15:25:47 <timeless> ... and chaals proposed text that greatly simplified the text
15:25:59 <timeless> ... i feel troubled as chaals dropped quite a lot of things
15:26:12 <timeless> ... chaals noted that there's redundancy between 7.7.1 and 7.7.2
15:26:22 <timeless> ... i thought it was important for us to come to some resolution on this
15:26:43 <timeless> ... chaals's changes dropped the bits put in to add emphasis for WGs to be responsible for managing Errata in a public way
15:26:52 <timeless> ... and he dropped the definition of what Errata means in the process
15:27:03 <timeless> jeff: Mr Chair, I have a Point of Order here
15:27:14 <timeless> ... i thought we had had extensive discussion on this
15:27:22 <timeless> ... fantasai spent time with us
15:27:26 <timeless> ... we sent it to PSIG
15:27:35 <timeless> ... it was pretty well developed
15:27:43 <timeless> ... i feel like it's done
15:28:01 <timeless> ... if we put something in and the AC wants to reject it, that's fine, that's the AC's prerogative
15:28:08 <timeless> ... fantasai showed up at the first meeting
15:28:11 <timeless> ... chaals showed up at the second
15:28:18 <timeless> ... fantasai didn't know about the second meeting
15:28:27 <timeless> SteveZ: that's why i'm discussing that
15:28:30 <dsinger> I thought we were reviewing the current proposed text…
15:28:37 <chaals> q+
15:28:43 <timeless> jeff: if there's a change that you and he can agree with, that's kind of ok
15:28:48 <jeff> ack je
15:28:59 <timeless> ... but to throw away fantasai's proposal w/o her being her to defend it, is troubling
15:29:04 <timeless> ack chaals
15:29:16 <timeless> chaals: the reason i put in text was that i forsaw a problem
15:29:22 <timeless> ... this was my counter-proposal
15:29:33 <timeless> ... the process isn't as random as you're characterizing
15:29:42 <timeless> SteveZ: i'm sympathetic to chaals 's PoV
15:29:48 <chaals> s/put in text/took an action item to make an laternative proposal/
15:29:53 <timeless> ... i'm not happy w/ your proposal for the reasons i gave
15:29:59 <timeless> ... you responded to those
15:30:03 <timeless> ... i can ping fantasai
15:30:05 <dsinger> can we have a link to the current proposal(s)?
15:30:05 <chaals> s/forsaw a problem/was unhappy with the proposal that was on the table/
15:30:26 <timeless> ... i feel your proposal really leaves not as much grounding as the text that i proposed
15:30:35 <timeless> ... is the text that i proposed too complex?
15:30:41 <timeless> ... or is there something more that's going on?
15:30:45 <timeless> q?
15:30:52 <timeless> chaals: there are several things that i'm unhappy about
15:31:06 <timeless> ... i'm concerned about the idea that recommendations include stuff that isn't part of the initial recommendation
15:31:19 <timeless> ... 1) it changes the long-standing social contract of w3's /TR/ publication
15:31:29 <timeless> ... 2) it changes the contract on WGs about how they do things
15:31:34 <dsinger> I agree that anything that is  an as-yet unapproved revision of a Rec needs to be clearly labeled as not a Rec
15:31:47 <timeless> ... there are a number of ways to do things, and this is just one of them
15:31:54 <timeless> ... i'm uncomfortable forcing a specific way
15:32:04 <jeff> q+ to ask Chaals what particularly he does not like.
15:32:33 <timeless> dsinger: can you give us a blow-by-blow critique of fantasai's proposal?
15:32:50 <timeless> xxx
15:33:01 <chaals> s/changes the contract on /places inappropriately restrictive and prescriptive constraints on /
15:33:03 <mchampion> q+
15:33:05 <timeless> i|xxx|-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jan/0010.html Discussion|
15:33:07 <timeless> s/xxx//
15:33:26 <timeless> SteveZ: in creating Process2014, some of the text that was put in was put in to address a lack of clarity
15:33:30 <timeless> ... it didn't exist in 2005
15:33:38 <timeless> ... taking it out seems to be, as jeff says, going in circles
15:33:49 <timeless> jeff: i don't see in chaals 's email where his objection is to the new process
15:33:52 <timeless> chaals: it isn't in my email
15:34:09 <timeless> jeff: chaals 's email says "here's the current process, here's my recommendation"
15:34:22 <timeless> ... for me, the process group came up w/ a proposed revision, that's what should be on the table
15:34:38 <timeless> ... if there are specific issues [with it], we should address/discuss them
15:34:44 <timeless> ... rather than starting from scratch
15:34:46 <timeless> q?
15:34:48 <timeless> ack jeff
15:34:48 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask Chaals what particularly he does not like.
15:34:53 <timeless> ack mchampion
15:35:00 <timeless> mchampion: i was going to agree w/ jeff
15:35:14 <timeless> ... when i read chaals 's proposal, i was struck that this doesn't seem to do what we set out to do here
15:35:25 <timeless> ... to motivate people to take errata, and address them more smoothly
15:35:31 <timeless> ... to address a political problem
15:35:37 <timeless> ... we're serious, you need to fix your bugs in place
15:35:46 <timeless> ... not doing so undermines the credibility of w3c recs
15:35:51 <dsinger> q+
15:35:56 <timeless> ack dsinger
15:36:19 <timeless> dsinger: what mchampion said, continues the confusion between Errata and Fixes to Errata
15:36:34 <chaals> q+
15:36:39 <timeless> ... even if a WG doesn't have a fix for an issue, i want the WG to be clear to the public that "we know there's a problem"
15:36:58 <timeless> dsinger: "Errata is a list of enumerated errors, possibly accompanied by corrections"
15:37:16 <timeless> ... in a distinct page, inline, manually maintained, or automatic
15:37:21 <chaals> q-
15:37:27 <timeless> ... i think clarifying that it doesn't have to be manually managed is fine
15:37:49 <timeless> SteveZ: chaals, i'm detecting people are in favor of the text that we had worked on
15:37:55 <timeless> ... as opposed to your proposal
15:38:01 <dsinger> can you post a link to the thing you’re wanting consensus on?
15:38:18 <timeless> ... i'll propose a resolution to clarify that Errata lists can be autogenerated
15:38:31 <timeless> ... i don't see support in this discussion for your proposal
15:39:57 <timeless> [ problem: there's a discussion, and a resolution "resolved as we discussed" -- which isn't as clear when read later as it once was ]
15:40:32 <timeless> [ action for scribe: if it isn't clear to scribe what a resolution is saying, ask ]
15:40:55 <timeless> chaals: "if i can't tell what the change to a document is saying from a resolution, then you should ask for clarification"
15:41:01 <timeless> s/]//
15:41:14 <timeless> s/[ action for scribe/SteveZ/
15:41:45 <timeless> dsinger: i suspect we can address chaals and ArtB's concern in a different way
15:42:01 <SteveZ> The December Proposal is documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2015Jan/0010.html
15:42:40 <timeless> timeless: please ensure that ArtB and fantasai are invited to the discussion
15:43:14 <timeless> dsinger: that's the wrong proposal
15:43:21 <timeless> ... we're looking for the previous proposal
15:43:39 <timeless> s/the wrong proposal/not the proposal we're looking for/
15:44:53 <SteveZ> Correctiion: the prior proposal was  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0004.htmlri
15:45:18 <timeless> s/htmlri/html/
15:46:16 <timeless> SteveZ: proposed RESOLUTION: insert the proposed text from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0004.html into the document
15:46:44 <timeless> RESOLUTION: insert the "Replacement text" from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0004.html into the document
15:47:13 <timeless> dsinger: chaals, what's your objection to this proposal
15:47:30 <timeless> chaals: I believe adding stuff in-situ to a document on TR is totally inappropriate
15:47:34 <timeless> dsinger: it could be read as doing that
15:47:47 <timeless> chaals: the only other mechanism it allows is forcing a separate Errata page
15:47:58 <timeless> ... one mechanism we don't like very much, and one mechanism that's actually terrible
15:48:14 <jeff> q+ to propose a compromise
15:48:14 <timeless> ... REC text should be the REC and just that
15:48:47 <timeless> ... doing it in two ways is problematic
15:48:48 <dsinger> I agree that the text proposed does not clearly indicate that any edited document must clearly identify itself as ‘not the Rec’
15:48:59 <timeless> ... things about class 4 changes is also a problem
15:49:22 <timeless> ... given you have to track Errata classes 1-3 in this mechanism, and Errata class 4 is different
15:49:30 <timeless> SteveZ: class 4 requires a WD
15:49:38 <timeless> chaals: ED don't require anything
15:49:44 <timeless> ... Errata doesn't require anything
15:49:50 <timeless> ... an Issue tracker doesn't require anything
15:50:03 <timeless> ... WGs should be able to choose what's most appropriate for them/their audience
15:50:26 <timeless> ... the requirement to report changes to interested parties per Team seems impractical/unimplemented
15:50:47 <timeless> ... changes to a REC per 7.7.2 are already required to have Wide-Review
15:51:00 <timeless> ... so, informing interested parties is effectively a repeat of that statement
15:51:13 <dsinger> This phrase “A Working Group should keep their Recommendations up-to-date as errors are reported” implies that something that has been edited after achieving RTec status will still be labeled as “the rec”, which is at best misleading
15:51:14 <timeless> ... in a form no less unclear + less trackable/verifiable
15:51:26 <timeless> SteveZ: i'm sympathetic to the issues you raised
15:51:37 <timeless> ... by putting the text in and then working on the issues, i think we can move forward
15:51:48 <timeless> ... better way to move forward than throwing the baby out with the bathwater
15:52:09 <timeless> chaals: if you record an objection w/ consensus, i'm ok
15:52:14 <timeless> dsinger: i'm not ok
15:52:24 <timeless> ... i think the text can be misread in important negative ways
15:52:25 <jeff> q?
15:52:50 <timeless> SteveZ: i think we make more progress by incorporating the text in the draft and working from there
15:52:59 <timeless> dsinger: you're the chair, as long as we can make more changes
15:53:00 <dsinger> zakim, who is makling noise?
15:53:00 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, dsinger.
15:53:16 <timeless> ack jeff
15:53:16 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to propose a compromise
15:53:33 <timeless> jeff: chaals makes some good points which should motivate us to modify the text
15:53:37 <timeless> ... i think what's important
15:53:44 <timeless> ... the Quarterly review is important
15:53:54 <timeless> ... i don't think i heard an objection to that in chaals 's narrative
15:54:09 <timeless> ... preserving the heart of fantasai's means to include errata with the text of the REC is important as well
15:54:15 <chaals> [I forgot to mention "quarterly review should be ditched in place of the existing requirements to treat issues in a timely manner"]
15:54:16 <timeless> ... to the extent that dsinger has concerns
15:54:26 <timeless> ... doing it in certain ways might be confusing
15:54:39 <timeless> ... doing it fantasai's way with "clearly marked" should be able to address that
15:55:10 <timeless> ... to the extent that chaals raised an issue that this is overly prescriptive, i wouldn't have a problem w/ the intent -- that it should be easy to find proposed corrections
15:55:21 <timeless> ... for people who'd like to find the current thinking
15:55:29 <timeless> ... and in the method fantasai proposed
15:55:43 <timeless> ... but adding that if the WG thinks they have a better way, that could be a WG decision
15:56:02 <jeff> [Chaals, thanks for forgetting to mention to ditch the quarterly reviews]
15:56:19 <timeless> SteveZ: jeff, i think you would like us to...
15:56:30 <timeless> jeff: i was suggesting that the editor be directed to adopt this text
15:56:53 <timeless> ... but with some specific emendations based on chaals + dsinger 's raised points
15:57:00 <timeless> .... but it might be too late in this meeting to work on that
15:57:03 <timeless> s/..../.../
15:57:18 <timeless> ... but i think we can do the debate+discussion next week/offline
15:57:44 <timeless> chaals: what works best is doing nothing
15:57:51 <timeless> ... what doesn't work at all is doing unspecified changes
15:57:58 <jeff> q+ to discuss schedule
15:58:08 <timeless> SteveZ: let's move forward with the 2 Nov 2014 text
15:58:14 <timeless> ... and work from that text
15:58:54 <timeless> ... chaals you won't have to put this into the draft, because we can work on this via email
15:59:17 <timeless> ... would those with problems w/ 2 Nov 2014 text suggest changes in email
15:59:23 <timeless> ack jeff
15:59:24 <Zakim> jeff, you wanted to discuss schedule
15:59:33 <timeless> jeff: without "throw away the whole proposal"
15:59:58 <timeless> chaals: i can rewrite my email as 7 emails one per paragraph
16:00:09 <timeless> ... each "nearly all of this is rubbish and should go"
16:00:14 <dsinger> “identify problems and the minimal changes needed to the Nov text to address them"
16:00:17 <timeless> jeff:  i don't see us making progress
16:00:38 <timeless> SteveZ: i think jeff + dsinger can propose constructive changes
16:00:40 <chaals> s/nearly all of //
16:00:56 <timeless> ... i'm looking for proposals, keeping the general structure
16:01:05 <chaals> s/go"/go" instead of a single email that addresses each point and makes a wholesale replacement proposal/
16:01:14 <timeless> ... distinguishing categories or not, but that seems like broader
16:01:32 <timeless> dsinger: SteveZ, you're saying take the 2 Nov 2014 text and identify MINIMAL changes and make proposals
16:01:36 <timeless> ... i think chaals and i can do that
16:01:40 <chaals> q+
16:01:46 <timeless> ... if we have multiple suggestions, we can probably merge them
16:02:19 <timeless> ack chaals
16:02:28 <timeless> chaals: SteveZ, do you want minimal, or optimal?
16:02:41 <timeless> SteveZ: i think the statement is minimal, you may interpret minimal in any sense
16:02:55 <timeless> jeff: we're looking for changes that preserve the spirit of fantasai's proposal
16:03:20 <timeless> ... as mike_champion said to solve a political problem
16:03:30 <chaals> [I think I will find it difficult to offer proposed changes that preserve something's spirit when I specifically oppose that spirit]
16:03:35 <timeless> ... without changing what it means to be a W3C REC
16:03:40 <timeless> ... if you can preserve that spirit
16:03:49 <timeless> chaals: i favor that, but i have issues with the spirit
16:04:05 <timeless> jeff: there was a pretty big consensus in with November to go along this path
16:04:12 <timeless> ... we should give AC review a chance w/ this direction
16:04:20 <timeless> ... it's the general consensus of this TF for some time
16:04:40 <timeless> SteveZ: i think the assignment is reasonably clear
16:04:42 <jeff> [Understand and respect Chaals' bracketed comment above.]
16:04:54 <timeless> ... we'll meet again on the 20th
16:04:56 <Zakim> -chaals
16:04:59 <Zakim> -Jeff
16:05:00 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
16:05:30 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:05:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:05:38 <dsinger> action: dsinger to consider proposing minimal changes to the Nov errata revision to address concerns
16:05:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Consider proposing minimal changes to the nov errata revision to address concerns [on David Singer - due 2015-01-20].
16:06:03 <timeless> s/JSA/JSC/
16:06:42 <timeless> [ Adjourned ]
16:06:45 <timeless> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:06:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-minutes.html timeless
16:06:48 <timeless> trackbot, end meeting
16:06:48 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:06:48 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been [IPcaller], chaals, timeless, SteveZ, Jeff, dsinger, Mike_Champion
16:06:53 <Zakim> -dsinger
16:06:55 <timeless> s/[IPcaller], //
16:06:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:06:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/13-w3process-minutes.html trackbot