– DRAFT –
DXWG weekly plenary

<kcoyle> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2019.03.19

<kcoyle> that's the agenda, fyi

<PWinstanley> proposed: accept minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌03/‌12-dxwg-minutes

<annette_g> +1

+1

<kcoyle> +1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<plh> +1

<ncar> 0 (absent)

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> 0 (absent)

<PWinstanley> 0 absent

<alejandra> +1

<PWinstanley> accepted: accept minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌03/‌12-dxwg-minutes

Resolved: accept minutes https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌03/‌12-dxwg-minutes

+1 for either 21 or 20 UTC

<ncar> as per Rob

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> I will not be present at TPAC in September..

Pwinstanley: should we be optimisitic and book a slot at TPAC in september?

DaveBrowning: is there a downside to accepting?

<alejandra> Personally, I cannot confirm now

<annette_g> I would be dialing in.

plh: downside is cost to W3C if not used

<tomb> isn't September is three months beyond end of charter?

<tomb> ok

PWinstanley: other options such as "evergreen" as discussed by plh last week/
… we need to have many eyes on all things on final run to mitigate errors in haste to finish
… see proposal on agenda

kcoyle: not the first suggestion which is that every single commit needs to be reviewed and accepted by the plenary?

alejandra: is this for all documents and all types of edits?

Pwinstanley: this applies to all commits and merges

alejandra: we have already been doing a process where editors review pull requests and if one editor submits other editors must review.

Pwinstanley: this is what we are already doing

<annette_g> um, I didn't say the above

<Zakim> plh, you wanted to add a bit more background as well

plh: some background - stopped ability to rewrite repository, and IPR check
… requiring review on PR is being applied across W3C
… at least one person needs to review

annette_g: we need to flag substantial changes

DaveBrowning: have been doing this with DCAT for some time - whats the procedure - looks like no merges on DCAT spec until over a week
… we wont meet end of month deadline

roba: we currently bring changes to normative sections in conneg and profiles to plenary - DCAT works within the sub-group only. plenary review of purely editorial commits is an untenable overhead

<PWinstanley> ack \,

<PWinstanley> ack \

<kcoyle> ack \

ncar: i dont think this will work: no problems with PR review but will require to preempt conversations and put PRS in a queue in advance.

alejandra: dont agree with it being for all commits: we have a procedure that works.

Pwinstanley: review by plenary "should go quickly" unless there are things people have issues about
… c.f. comments by annette_g re QSA

<alejandra> We always worked on the assumption that we have a draft document and everyone can make comments at any stage of the process

* thanks alejandra - struggling to keep up

<annette_g> The issue is several months old, for the record.

plh: i think you should try it out - PRS can be merged

<Zakim> alejandra, you wanted to mention potential conflicts

PRS yes - but commits makes no sense - we should commit on issue resolution - its the issues we should vote on, not the commits

alejandra: many PRS will mean many conflicts

plh: groups arent experiences

annete_g: when commits of editorial nature these can be grouped in one PR

roba: issues should be accepted and commits are editorial process

alejandra: agree with roba

<Zakim> plh, you wanted to remind folks about labels and to mention github workflow

<plh> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌workflow.html

alejandra: we currently work on fine grained PRs on separate branches and it works well

<plh> git add -p

plh: we have github page for procedures

<alejandra> We have been using the labels

plh: recommend that use editors label "editorial only"
… two editors can work separately in a non-default branch

ncar: do you mean commits or pull requests

plh: I mean PR - a PR containst one or more commits

plh: granularity is at PR not commit

<alejandra> the text about the procedure at https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2019.03.19 has to change to refer to PRs

<annette_g> +1 to alejandra

ncar: labelling as editorial implies a lesser level of review - which is actually more difficult.

Pwinstanley: hearing this but can we just roll with it?

<ncar> +1 to plenary review needed for Issue closing, not Commits or PRs

<alejandra> +1

Action: Pwinstanley to correct proposal to reference pull requests not commits

<trackbot> Created ACTION-319 - Correct proposal to reference pull requests not commits [on Peter Winstanley - due 2019-03-26].

open issues

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

Pwinstanley: are there any issues the subgroups are finding difficulty with

can we add this to the standing agenda as first item after actions

ncar: anything passed in plenary is then merged

alejandra: in the last meeting we were told we shouldnt address new features
… so its all editorial work

its actually editorial work on profiles - after bottoming out comments on scope and descriptions - a bit of actual work on normative in conneg

<alejandra> I think we can add new issues with the understanding that they will go to the backlog for now

<alejandra> DCAT CR milestone: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌14

<alejandra> DCAT backlog: https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌15 (these milestones are not yet updated)

plh: should be dealt with as a group as a "consent" item