See also: IRC log
<kaz_> [ present now: Kaz, Dave, Michael, Daniel, Darko, Joerg, Kazuaki, Matthias, Pankesh, Takuki, Toru, Yingying ]
<scribe> scribenick: dsr
Daniel: I noticed that there are still some open issues in the old charter space, so we should clean these up.
Matthias: what space?
<dape> see https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/
Sebastian: ….
Matthias: we need to close our issues and remove the old draft
Kaz: we can add a status note to
the old draft to point people to the new charter
... we can simply close the issues, right?
Matthias: Sebastian, you could close them as a lot of them are yours, right?
I will ask Kaz to help with this
Kaz: I wanted to mention the status of the IG charter review
<kaz_> ac review results (member-only)
Kaz: So far we have 5 reviews and we need to get a lot more, and I want some help with reaching out
Matthias: so this is something for everyone in the IG to follow through on.
<scribe> ACTION: Joerg to email the IG list to ask people to contact their AC Reps to respond to the IG charter AC Review [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-wot-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Email the ig list to ask people to contact their ac reps to respond to the ig charter ac review [on Joerg Heuer - due 2016-06-29].
Joerg: in Montreal I had some discussion with Jeff Jaffe (W3C CEO) on a roadmap for preparation of a WoT WG
(Joerg projects a slide with the roadmap)
He talks us through the roadmap
We had discussions in May on the draft charter. In June the idea is to agree on integration of comments by other stakeholders.
The roadmap also covers a milestone for the current practices document in the run up to Beijing
We’re also working on a public call for implementations. Daniel, can you give a status update on that?
Daniel: we sent that out and are collecting material on the wiki.
<dape> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Implementations
There are 2 more I will add later today
The deadline for final IG comments on the WG charter is 22nd June.
The idea is to encourage a peer to peer discussion with external contacts on the WG charter
This is expected to continue for 4 to 5 weeks
<kaz> [ present+ Carsten, Frank, Katsuyoshi, Masato ]
In July, we want to record the outcome of the plugfest in Beijing, and to integrate comments into the WG charter.
In August, we want to finalize the WG charter and get it ready for AC Review in September
The aim is to have the WG launched six weeks or so after the AC Review starts
Joerg: any comments?
Dave: we’re missing milestones for the work on use case requirements and tech landscape
we need to document and encourage discussion on technologies which isn’t happening in the current practices doc
Matthias: we wanted to have public releases for these documents to show companies
I understand that we’re ready to do this for the architecture document and to then work on a more detailed architecture in the WG
Dave: We’ve been operating since the start of 2015, and it is kind of weird that we’ve not yet published any reports
We need to identify editors and then to trigger a call for comments on publishing a snap shot of the document as IG notes. This could last a week, and result in a formal resolution in the next IG call
<mkovatsc> http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html
Matthias: we have editors so that’s ok
Matthias summarises the editors involved, some of whom aren’t on the call today
<inserted> kaz: I agree what you're saying is important, but we're now discussing "WG Charter Roadmap". So we should talk about IG document timeline later separately, shoulnd't we?
Joerg: we need a clear understanding of what needs to be done
Kaz: can we defer the discussion of the publication of IG reports in a later agendum?
Joerg: we need to add the documents we plan to publish to the roadmap
Kaz: can we split the roadmap into one for the WG and another for the IG?
Dave summarises the short term for the IG rechartering process and the need for discussion on what’s missing
Daniel: how are we going to publish the roadmap?
We need to provide roadmaps for the IG and the WG
Matthias: agreed that it should be publicly accessible, perhaps the wiki?
Daniel: my preference is for github for issue tracking
Matthias: the issues will be about the work, and not the roadmap so much
<kaz> +1 to put the roadmap on the wiki and manage issues using github
Matthias: so let’s publish the roadmap on the wiki
Kaz: given that the roadmap has us closing the WG charter today, we should discuss this now. I chatted with Dave and others and we agree that we need to add content for the relationships to W3C and external groups ASAP. Also we should review the draft charter specifically from the viewpoint of how to handle "semantic" and "abstraction".
Joerg: the idea for the current milestone is to be ready for outreach to external stakeholders.
I will update the roadmap to clarify this goal
<joerg> Rephrase to [Milestone-Jun-4] Deadline for final comments on WG Charter for the purpose of P2P review comments (22nd of June)
Kaz: In that case, you actually mean we'll discuss the draft charter during the Beijing F2F as well.
We should add a milestone in early September on IG release of the WG charter for AC Review
<joerg> Add –[Milestone-Aug/Sep-2] Release Charter for AC review
Kaz: we should clarify the timing for bringing the WG Charter to W3M approval for the AC Review
Matthias: we expect to make changes following discussion in Beijing, and taking into account feedback from external stakeholders.
Dave: after that we need a IG Resolution on seeking W3M Approval for initiating the AC Review
Kaz: if we want to review the WG charter in Lisbon, we don’t want to seek W3M approval before then
In other words we should have the resolution in Lisbon on Sep 19
Toru asks for clarification of the process
Kaz: the IG resolves to seek W3M approval for starting an AC Review. W3M then needs review from some W3M Members, resulting in some changes, and then W3M will approve the start of the review, which is then normally 4 week in duration.
Toru: is there a way to accelerate this?
Maybe we should start outreach to stakeholders in July
Kaz: some of us have already started outreach with key stakeholders, but AC review will take 4 weeks in any way.
If we want to accelerate the timescale we can bring forward the IG resolution to end of August with the aim of starting the AC Review in mid September
Joerg: the stakeholder feedback is very important
and this may alter the timeline according to what we’re told
<mkovatsc> Proposal: bilateral outreach now, detailed review and issue collection in Beijing, start resolving issues and group resolution 2 weeks after Beijing, start W3C mgmt review directly so it is done at TPAC, start AC Review at TPAC for more promotion
Matthias: we should start outreach now and collect the issues in Beijing and resolve then soon after
Dave recaps how we handled this for the IG charter
Matthias: we can use TPAC to reach out to the AC
Dave: Joerg could perhaps briefly talk about this during the AC meeting at TPAC
Joerg: so I should ask for an AC agendum on the WoT IG AC Review
Kaz: we should also use the plenary day for outreach
Dave: indeed
Nimura-san: we will discuss the comments in Beijing, right?
Matthias: yes
<knimura> just use f2f for comments resolution
Matthias: 2 issues open, one on capitalisation that I will deal with and another on being more neutral in respect to protocols
Daniel: we can remove the names of protocols in the WG charter
<kaz> GitHub Issues
Sebastian: for security I can ask Oliver for rewording
Matthias: Oliver’s text was hard for non-experts to understand
Sebastian: we need to be neutral and try to find descriptions that reflect that
Matthias: the security section is
the one that is most effected
... you need to give some concrete examples, e.g. in the
introduction
Sebastian: in the introduction that’s fine, but we should be very careful in the scope section
Kaz: it should be okay to include examples so long as we made clear that these are just examples and not a prescriptive list
Matthias: I will check the wording on this
Matthias: we had the document freeze but there were a few things missing
We still need an explanation on security.
<mkovatsc> http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices-beijing-2016.html
Daniel: we will include the links we had from the Sophia Antiplois F2F
Matthias: I created a copy of the document, see above link. Please review this and provide feedback on what’s missing
I also want to talk about discovery. We want to use a repository. There is a possibility for experimenting with ideas from the IETF and OCF
Who has used the repository?
Daniel: we have in the EU ThingWeb project
Matthias: would you be able to adapt the process quickly, so that it aligns with the CORE WG resource discovery approach
Daniel: yes this should be ok
Darko describes some details …
Matthias: perhaps some others using the client we provided?
Perhaps we can look at who was involved in the previous face to face meetings and check with them?
Matthias: I will update the current practices document to include text on how the repository is supposed to work
<kaz> [ present+ Johannes ]
Yingying tells us that we can’t use a router, but will be able to use a static block of IP addresses
<yingying> yes. That's what I got from hotel IT person.
Matthias: we need to assign static IP addresses, and there is not need for a wifi password of HTTP based credentials in the wiki, I can assign you an address when you register.
Michael will only be able to participate remotely
Michael: I will be in Berlin, but can’t make it to Beijing
Matthias: one of us can carry a router as a backup
<mkovatsc> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Participation
Matthias: we will list all of the IP settings on the wiki
Please enter what ever you’re bringing to Beijing in the wiki (see link above)
<dape> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Requirements
Daniel: we should encourage people to provide more details on their requirements, e.g. whether you need to add an external service so that we can test it.
Matthias: this especially applies to Panasonic
Toru: for security reasons we don’t want to include the IP address on the wiki
Matthias: fine, just contact Daniel so we can update the test tool
Toru: we use skype for business, and would like to use that in Beijing
Daniel: that is hard for us to test
Kaz: and we can try webex as well
Kaz asks Yinying if she has tried skype and webex from the hotel network?
Yingying: we can try that tomorrow
Sebastian: just a reminder to Dave and Louay on web sockets and Bluetooth Smart where we’re expecting pull requests
Dave to chase Louay on that
Matthias: ok that’s it for today, bye!
<scribe> scribe: Dave
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Toru/Toru, Yingying/ Succeeded: s/results/results (member-only)/ Succeeded: i/Joerg/kaz: I agree what you're saying is important, but we're now discussing "WG Charter Roadmap". So we should talk about IG document timeline later separately, shoulnd't we? Succeeded: s/ASAP./ASAP. Also we should review the draft charter specifically from the viewpoint of how to handle "semantic" and "abstraction"./ Succeeded: s/we can discuss the charter during the Beijing F2F/In that case, you actually mean we'll discuss the draft charter during the Beijing F2F as well./ Succeeded: s/some/some of/ Succeeded: s/but it can take quite a while to get results./but AC review will take 4 weeks in any way./ Succeeded: s/will/that/ Succeeded: s/hsa/has/ Succeeded: s/respository/repository/ Succeeded: s/can/can’t use a router, but will be able to use a static block of IP addresses/ Succeeded: s/IP addresses/IP addresses, and there is not need for a wifi password of HTTP based credentials/ Found ScribeNick: dsr Found Scribe: Dave Present: Daniel_Peintner Toru_Kawaguchi Kaz Sebastian_Kaebisch Got date from IRC log name: 22 Jun 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-wot-minutes.html People with action items: joerg WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]