The meeting was a combination of chat and audio so the chat transcript (given below) is an incomplete record of the discussion.
David - In B4.1 delete "- and allow them to validate - " and append "and allow them to verify this"
Read the circulated B2. Rewritev2.doc document to ensure it accurately reflects the discussion of 16 June 2008.
Determine if the text in Rewritev2.doc document should replace the text on the wiki in the current working document.
Reread the current working document on the wiki at the 30,000 foot level.
Consider whether other sections of the document on the wiki should be rewritten in the style of B2. Rewritev2.doc.
Post comments for B.3.4 and all of B.4.
Do a conceptual walk-through of an AIP creation to see if B.2 contains all of the mandatory requirements for AIP creation.
Matrix showed a clear preference for the current time/ day/ duration.
So for next time we will meet at the same day and time for a 90 minute session.
For next meeting: Everyone should complete their comments on B4 and B5.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): My suggestions for B2.1 is  add "in whole or part" to "been used, in whole or part, in creating . . ."
RobertDowns >> (All): how about "to reflect the age of its holdings" for the last phrase of the sentence, to address David's concern.
Riccardo Ferrante >> (All): It sounds like the point is that they demonstrate continued preservation activities that sustain their objects understandability for so long as the objects remain in their custody. Does this extend to provide evidence of a sustained commitment to do so into the future?
Riccardo Ferrante >> (All): Are we trying to specify the methodology by which effectiveness is achieved? Feels too prescriptive.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): in "preservation planning?
KatiaThomaz >> (All): continuous understandability should be in "Archival storage & preservation/maintenance of AIPs"
David Giaretta >> (All): Note for the record  - if we change the discussion in B3.4 then this would imply that it be moved to B4.
Mark Conrad >> (All): I vote to move it as well.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We should state our hierarchy/usage the first time.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): We should state our usage the first time.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Agreed and have them in a glossary as well.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Will a technical editor help pick this up?
Mark Conrad >> (All): My view of the hierarchy Policies/Strategies/Plans.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Helen, Yes, but that is not "validate"
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I think that is good and I agree the repository will know more about preservation of its content than any other group.
David Giaretta >> (All): NOte for the record ACTION - delete "- and allow them to validate - " and append "and allow them to verify this"
David Giaretta >> (All): I think my audio has dropped out!
Mark Conrad >> (All): I think we need to discontinue the use of audio.
KatiaThomaz >> (All): i must quit now.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Mark, given the time should we deal with either B2 or the matrix on day/time?
JohnGarrett >> (All): So we meet same day/time next time?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): Let's discuss the matrix. The choices I put down are for now until Aug. 15 when classes start up again and I have a very different schedule.
Simon Lambert >> (All): Looks like Monday is the definite choice of day.
BruceAmbacher >> (All): Helen, do you know what you can do during the semester?
Mark Conrad >> (All): Looks like the current day and time are the  preferred.
Helen Tibbo >> (All): In genreal this is a good time for me.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Action items for next time?
Mark Conrad >> (All): We still have action items from last week and the week before to cover.
JohnGarrett >> (All): Complete B4 and move to B5 next week?
Helen Tibbo >> (All): I should be able to join next week.
Mark Conrad >> (All): Someone else will have to "chair."
David Giaretta >> (All): I tried to note ACTIONs  in the chat - let's try to collect all outstanding actions onto one page - the WIki has a way!
Mark Conrad >> (All): David did you complete the analysis of B.3. vs Appendix?