– DRAFT –
DXWG DCAT subgroup teleconference 20 March 2019 21:00 UTC

<DaveBrowning> √

approve agenda

<SimonCox> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

DaveBrowning: there is a modified process for the PRs : https://‌www.w3.org/‌2017/‌dxwg/‌wiki/‌Meetings:Telecon2019.03.19
… so we need to focus in the light of the process

SimonCox: interested in understanding the motivation and I will find it difficult to think of the role of editor

DaveBrowning: agenda agreed, can we approve minutes of last meeting

minutes of last meeting

<Makx> +1

proposed: agree minutes of last meeting

+

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

<SimonCox> +1 (some nuances of discussion got lost, but the conclusions are all correct)

+1

<DaveBrowning> +1

<AndreaPerego> +1

Resolved: agree minutes of last meeting

item 3 -

PWinstanley: Change to process to follow advice from Philippe LH
… explicit 'nod' from plenary
… want to make sure plenary is fully involved
… want to be extra careful as we approach CR etc
… maximum number of eyes' also good governance/team particiapation
… challenge is that it has to apply to github repo
… so it applies to all DXWG work. Chairs acknowledge that it will present some challenge

<Zakim> SimonCox, you wanted to ask if other groups have as many (i) PRs and issues (ii) contributors? and to ask if 'tag team' has been a problem in DCAT-rev? and to point out that plenaries will need to be much more efficient to allow timely outcomes and to ask isn't it way too late in the process to introduce such a big change?

SimonCox: Difficult to believe plenary can handle the bandwidth of chain

PWinstanley: Use process that is used for minutes (ie simple vote)

<SimonCox> Plenary approval is not a 'wee' gate ... it is a narrow bottleneck

PWinstanley: dont' expect much (or any) discussion

<PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: I have many of the same concerns as SimonCox and I know that we were giving it a shot, but I'm wanting to see what we can do to make this work

<PWinstanley> ... in the timing that we have with this project, if we have to have a PR ready 24h before the meeting, then we need to have things ready earlier than we usually do

<PWinstanley> ... Also, there are concerns about merges not being consistent. It feels that we need a separate thread to examine practicality

<PWinstanley> ... and I think we need to sort out how this group can move forward.

<PWinstanley> SimonCox: I agree. we might not get the CR out on time

<PWinstanley> DaveBrowning: Some editorial PRs need to be done serially

riccardoAlbertoni: I think that we can ease the situation by collecting all the contributions and the group can have the last word on the final merge

riccardoAlbertoni: we could have a shadow branch and merge into that

<DaveBrowning> PWinstanley: That approach might be useful - especially for editorial changes

<DaveBrowning> SimonCox: What is the role of the editor in this

<DaveBrowning> SimonCox: This process seems to supplant what the editor had responsibility for

DCAT CR

<DaveBrowning> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌milestone/‌14

DaveBrowning: the DCAT CR is defined at
… from last week we agreed to have a CR with all the things we thought we needed. I've taken 2 approaches - the stuff we need is in milestone 14, and also I've included things that are active and which I think can be closed quite quickly
… some things tagged as 'critical' absolutely have to be done
… e.g. issue #377 involved working links across the document, and anew namespace. we also need privacy and security sections
… I am happy if people add issues that they think are critical defects that need to be addressed.

<riccardoAlbertoni> I would put "remove DataDistributionService" as critical

DaveBrowning: we now have the opportunity to look at the work and quickly triage them. The critical ones need to be identified
… esp the DataDistributionService needs to be removed
… I need others to check through

<riccardoAlbertoni> thanks a lot simon !

<SimonCox> s/PPR/PR/

<riccardoAlbertoni> perhaps we can mark it critical and "duetoclose"

DaveBrowning: so #789 is twice reviewed and is ready for merging

DaveBrowning: I think it is important that this group is happy about the content of this milestone

riccardoAlbertoni: I think we should label the critical ones - they need to be done, and the others retained in the backlog

Makx: I've looked at them , there are many where the discussion has reached conclusion. Those are on the list for endorsement. If there are other critical ones then they need to be done. Any for which discussion is still required and which are not critical need to be left for the next version
… we need to have a 3 category sorting

<riccardoAlbertoni> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌dxwg/‌issues/‌820

DaveBrowning: do people think that they can find time in the next day or so to look at the milestone and ensure that they are happy with the labelling of 'critical' items. We need to identify items that might be critical and prevent us from going to PR
… There is a difference between improvements of style and corrections of critical errors

AndreaPerego: can you clarify the issues you're referring to?

DaveBrowning: issue 807

AndreaPerego: I think these are new features - so I guess these are for version 1.2

DaveBrowning: I have moved to the backlog milestone so that we don't loose it

DaveBrowning: there are a series of PR chains that still need to be done
… please can people have a look and ensure that we have captured everything in the milestone that we are wanting to achieve

<Makx> +1

+1

<riccardoAlbertoni> +1

DaveBrowning: any other business?

Jaroslav_Pullmann: weeks ago I did some work on versioning - has it been closed?

DaveBrowning: in the interim there has been a major push to have a PR by the end of the month. the versioning stuff will be held over to 1.2
… There are aspects of procedure (evergreen standards, etc) that will ensure that your work does not get lost

<SimonCox> bye

AndreaPerego: same question as Jaroslav_Pullmann . My concern is that I'm happy to keep hold of issues that I think are important to be included provided that they will be included in a short timeframe
… I am still unclear about the procedures and also the type of commitment that people are able to devote to this work. If people leave we will be understaffed. If this happens then I would like an extension
… we need some stronger steer from W3C about the process and the next steps. The risk is that we do work that comes to nothing

DaveBrowning: there needs to be some coherent explanation as to how we are moving forward

<Makx> ok thx bye

<riccardoAlbertoni> bye!!

<Jaroslav_Pullmann> thanks!