– DRAFT –
DXWG Plenary

confirm agenda

<AndreaPerego> +1

<roba> +1

proposed: approval of minutes Feb 5th

<AndreaPerego> 0 (was not there)

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌02/‌05-dxwg-minutes

<PWinstanley> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌02/‌05-dxwg-minutes

0 (not there)

<annette_g> +1

<roba> +1

<kcoyle> +1

<DaveBrowning> 0 (not there)

Resolved: approval of minutes Feb 5th

Open Action Items

https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌track/‌actions/‌open

<AndreaPerego> About action-282: https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-wg/‌2019Jan/‌0562.html

Resolved: action-289

Resolved: issue-289

<AndreaPerego> close action-282

<trackbot> Closed action-282.

close action-289

<trackbot> Closed action-289.

Discussion about sprints

PWinstanley: we have had a couple of DCAT and one on Guidance coming

PWinstanley: DaveBrowning & kcoyle to describe

DaveBrowning: thinks last DCAT sprint successful, not so much authoring but lots of agreements on next actions, second sprint tomorrow, focussing on versioning, haven't thought too far beyond that but thinks that they have covered major issues

PWinstanley: we must decide when to call a halt to everything

PWinstanley: sprints seem to be well received & make progress

PWinstanley: should we get position on halting after next sprint?

DaveBrowning: yes, after tomorrow's sprint, we should be in a good position to determine next stage of the DCAT doc, e.g. what to do about Reqs about alignment so far unaddressed - are these for the WG or other, non-normative groups?

DaveBrowning: critical aspects of the DCAT spec all done

PWinstanley: are working procedures appropriate?

DaveBrowning: based on one workshop, yes, it went well

DaveBrowning: good to dedicate time to a specific set of issues

<kcoyle> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌dxwg/‌profiles/

kcoyle: we've done a 1 hr sprint and have revised Sec 1 of Guidance doc and have requested another 2 hr session this week

kcoyle: we will be looking at Sec 2

<kcoyle> https://‌docs.google.com/‌document/‌d/‌1Y4jP4SGZMnt63EpjTX11-hW6-3mxlaq1i-Lbiw4tx1M/‌edit#heading=h.xsyg95spoofu

kcoyle: anyone can make Google Doc suggestions on that doc

kcoyle: we are trying to get as many edits as possible into the doc and are so far happy with the approach

PWinstanley: any lessons learned?

kcoyle: get lots of content into Google Doc

PWinstanley: coverage rather than depth

<PWinstanley> ncar: if there is a problem with webex CSIRO can provide

Karen's email for proceedure for replying to comments

<PWinstanley> https://‌lists.w3.org/‌Archives/‌Public/‌public-dxwg-wg/‌2019Feb/‌0218.html

<alejandra_> yes, that's what we've done in DCAT

kcoyle: we have a procedure here, thank the commenter, return to (sub)group to discuss before formulating a reply

DaveBrowning: we have mostly done this in DCAT

kcoyle: we recognised mailing list v. GitHub Issues

kcoyle: when we reach concensus in Issues' discussion, we have something to point to for following up comments

<alejandra_> there is a label called 'feedback'

kcoyle: we should keep a list of the comments we've gotten - create a GitHub label to indicate outside input

PWinstanley: we need to ensure we aren't open to collusive behaviour, this is important for EU and similar org adoption

PWinstanley: wide discussion & proper procedure are important

PWinstanley: there is also a required W3C agreement about not holding on to patents

PWinstanley: important if secondary to core standards work

<DaveBrowning> ?

alejandra_: we have a 'feedback' label for GitHub

<PWinstanley> ncar: I created a feedback label and things I've dealt with are tagged in that way

PWinstanley: any further comments on this SOP?

kcoyle: dsr, is this in line with other groups?

dsr: haven't seen sprints much elsewhere

kcoyle: meant procedures for responses more

dsr: normally, proceedure is to invite people within the group to come up with comments, position established and presented back to group

<SimonCox> apologies for joining late - network was down

kcoyle: are you, dsr, aware of what needs to be presented to prove feedback for document next stages?

dsr: you need to indicate how you've handled comments and the means, email, GitHub, may vary

dsr: you want to make sure all important comments have been addressed to the satisfaction of the commentor, not necissarily by agreement

kcoyle: we have asked commentors, have we satisfied you

dsr: seems sensible

roba: can we filter GitHub issues to reveal all those not from WG meetings

<alejandra> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌pull/‌750

alejandra_: new W3C check for WG users is applied to all PRs and fails if person not registered in WG

<SimonCox> I don't think the list of contributors is so long that we can't manually cross check against WG members

<alejandra> we could use the github API and write some code to do that

<alejandra> yeah, maybe manually cross checking is easier as SimonCox says

ncar: we can filter for WG Issues using GitHub filter

roba: how do we handle private comments on items which are then agreed to be forwarded to the Comments list? Assumption is it goes to Comments and then we respond formally, even if we've informally responded before

<alejandra> would it help to send the emails also to the comments list?

ncar: some comments come in privately, even if people are directed to public Comments list

PWinstanley: chairs responsibility to ensure probity of responses

continued discussion about 5FTF

PWinstanley: is 5FTF sensible?

PWinstanley: how do we coordinate deliverables

<PWinstanley> ncar: there are many places where coordination is needed, but as the document on profiles guidance matures this will be clearer

DaveBrowning: there are un-touched issues touching on DCAT profiles or profiles of DCAT. Haven't assessed what we need from Prof Guide here

PWinstanley: subgroups & sprints should bear coordination in mind. Perhaps logging them in GitHub or Google Docs for drafts

PWinstanley: 5FTF, are people interested in making a plan for something in a couple of months?

kcoyle: complication is that it is almost at the end of the charter, will the charter be extended, if so a meeting would perhaps make more sense

PWinstanley: should we pensil an FTF in, rather than making a committment? Or are multiple sprints the way to go?

<PWinstanley> ncar: We have a lot of potential to extract from sprints before we consider a F2F

PWinstanley: 10min to go, there is merit in ending early, thanks everyone, we have sprints and meetings tomorrow and sprints the next day

bigbluehat: people who have logged on from the Lyon meeting and seem to be on permanently

SimonCox: can we kick bigbluehat off?

ncar: we have had other permalogons before e.g. Hadley Beeman

dsr: I can ask W3C if people can be evicted from IRC

PWinstanley: potentially remove bigbluehat sandro @rhiaro

PWinstanley: if we can boot them off, they can come back if the want

ncar: I suspect a stray browser tab is open somewhere and hidden

<annette_g> In my client, I can see when each person's last activity was.

dsr: present plus is the basis for meeting presence

PWinstanley: dsr, please do have a chat about policy on this and if people can be cleared

<annette_g> they have recent activity

<annette_g> but I don't think it's in this channel

PWinstanley: enjoy Valentine's day