Irc Notes

*** Diane (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** Signoff: WilliamV ("CGI:IRC")
*** mmarin (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** fred (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
<fred> Re: the revote on charter.  Since the change happened at the first meeting, why bother?
<BerndE> we can use the initial submit and accept the first changes as cntribution
<mchapman> would like to be added to speaker queue
<fred> Right.  Re: revote, that's usually necessary if folks left themselves out because charter didn't include.  If changes such that they might wanna get in...
*** Signoff: Diane ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
<fred> But that's no thte issue here.  So accept & go on.
<fred> It would be nice if the revision had marks, changes notes, and a new version number :-D
<rtenhove> Or at least a diff (assuming it wouldn't be too large).
<SatishT> you can actually look at the "changes from 1.0" sections in the march and may docs and do a subtraction yourself :-)
<fred> True enought, but I'll stick w/ my version number
<rtenhove> The changes section omits the new dependency on WS-Addressing, for example
<Monica> You missed Martin Chapman on the quue.
<dannyv> got you martin.  haven't been reading
<fred> requesting speaker queue
<dannyv> got you fred.
<SatishT> ws-addr is the fourth bullet in 4.1.3
<BerndE> are the original submitters clear with not issuing new version w/o tc?
<rtenhove> I stand corrected. It appears the Acrobat reader doesn't search across line breaks too well :-)
> is there a strong industrie support even if the license issue keeps restrictive and closed, which is atypical for ws standards?
<fred> Unfortuantely, this may be a direction with which we'll all have to deal.  I think that the WS Security stuff may be moving in a similar direction.
<fred> But I could be mistaken...
<rtenhove> There IEEE had a nice write-up on the trade-offs between open and encumbered standards recently. The title was something like "the tragedy of the commons."
<BerndE> http://www.computer.org/proceedings/wetice/1269/12690315abs.htm <- this?
<fred> speaker queue?
<rtenhove> Looks like the very article; I saw it in print originally (primative that I am).
<fred> Is it not the case that the only the original motioner must agree?  There's no vote, at least not in any meeting I've ever been in...
<fred> ((scratch my speaker queue request)))
<dannyv> sorry folks.  i'm not able to make sure that i can get requests for the queue from here.  if i don't ack you here, request by voice.
<fred> (No problem.  Issue's moot now...)
<dannyv> i don't think i'm an IEEE member so i can't get access.  anyone volunteer to summarize in email?
<BerndE> me neighter
*** Signoff: jevdemon ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
<Monica> Is this considered a legal opinion?
*** peterf (127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** Signoff: peterf (Client Quit)
<Donald> Requesting SQ
<dannyv> got you donald
*** Signoff: mmarin ("CGI:IRC")
<dannyv> donald can i get your last name?  tnx
*** jevdemon (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** mmarin (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** SAWhite (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
<jevdemon> Is anyone else experiencing problems with the IRC server?  
<dannyv> i see you and others dropping off and coming back, but i'm seeing no problems
<jevdemon> ok
<BerndE> the server is only open via web now
<dannyv> i'll grab a transcript and send it in email to the list if there are no objections
<BerndE> web server may need reconnect every now and then depending on proxy/firewall/net
<jevdemon> I see no problem with posting transript to email - please note in your email that this is an "unofficial" resource that was made available to the TC.  Please also note that not all TC members were able to use the IRC resource.
<rtenhove> I believe that falls within the IEEE's copyright statement of "fair use."
<dannyv> will do
<jevdemon> rtenhove?
<dannyv> rtenhove was responding, i think, to my request for a summary of an article whose link was provided.
<BerndE> personally i dont see a problem with beeing added inoficially to the sq (here) since it is less disruptive
<dannyv> i agree, but diane has asked for that not to happen without discussion on concall.  i think that's reasonable
<BerndE> ok
<rtenhove> Yes, dannyv is correct, I referring to the IEEE article.
<jevdemon> ah.  THere is a freeware posting of the article you referenced here: http://web.media.mit.edu/~reilly/wetice2001.html
<dannyv> tnx
<rtenhove> Even better.
<Donald> Steiner (sorry for the delay - you probably don't need it now!)
<dannyv> tnx :-)
*** guest773 (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** Paul (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** Signoff: guest773 (Client Quit)
*** guest854 (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** guest690 (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** kswenson (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
<BerndE> mail?
<fred> Why not Kavi ballot online???
<jevdemon> its not real time
<fred> As I just noted, neither is the F2F mechanism...
<BerndE> i think it is good to have a web poll where all tc can vote
*** Signoff: kswenson ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
<fred> probably OK, but I don't really think it matters much.  Eventually the BoF will come up w/recommendations.  This subject seems destined to continue for a while ;-/
*** Signoff: rtenhove ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
<Donald> Was it a Yeah or a Nay?
<Donald> :-)
<Monica> Hard to tell
<dannyv> by fiat
<fred> So, if we can vote on Kavi by voice, why not the motion?  Metamotion --> motion
<Donald> Voice is just not accurate enough:-( 
<fred> (see metamotion :-o )
<Monica> I vote to use IRC.
<Monica> May I be placed on the speaker queue?
<jevdemon> Monica - I believe there is an issue in that some members are unable to use IRC
<dannyv> your vote is not yet recognizable :-(
<fred> WFM but there's some comment about inabiloity to get there for now.
<Monica> I realize that; I'll interject when I can.
<dannyv> monica - you'll have to ask by voice :-(
<Monica> I know; question was answered actually.
<BerndE> oh my mute
<dannyv> sorry, just trying to make sure.
<jevdemon> Thanks to Bernd for setting up this facility.  Bernd, would you be interested in promoting your IRC server as a resource for for future conference calls?
<Monica> No problem; thanks for follow-through.
*** guest524 (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** Signoff: Paul ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
*** Signoff: jevdemon ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
*** jevdemon (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** guest039 (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
*** Signoff: dannyv ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
<jevdemon> Bernd, can you post the irc log to the mailing list?
*** dannyv (@127.0.0.1) has joined channel #bpel
<dannyv> i ran the help command and couldn't figure out how to get back in so now i've lost the transcript.  if anyone else has it, please send it to the list after the meeting
*** Signoff: Monica ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
*** Signoff: guest039 (Client Quit)
<BerndE> i have l ag file since i joined
<jevdemon> Bernd should have the transcript on his server
<jevdemon> (I assume)
<BerndE> log
<jevdemon> yes - thanks
<BerndE> jev: yes i want tu support those calls
*** Signoff: ygoland ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
*** Signoff: Tony ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
*** Signoff: SAWhite ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
*** Signoff: guest524 ("CGI:IRC (EOF)")
*** dannyv has left channel #bpel
<jevdemon> Excellent - could you make a short presentation next week on the IRC system?  We can use it to augment the calls (much like the W3C does)
<BerndE> i will summarize that in an email, there are some open issues i noticed and not sure what was the problem for a few
<jevdemon> Thanks again for setting this up/
*** dburdett has left channel #bpel
<BerndE> welcome, john
IRC log ended Wed May 21 20:03