<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2019/09/17-dxwg-minutes
<annette_g> +1
<ncar> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
PWinstanley: asks for approval of last minutes
<PWinstanley> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
Resolved: minutes of 17th September are approved
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99375/DCAT_to_CR/results
<PWinstanley> +1
<DaveBrowning> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
<kcoyle> +1
<ncar> +1
<annette_g> +1
PWinstanley: does everyone agree that we move DCAT to CR, everyone vote please
<antoine> +1
Resolved: poll results for DCAT to CR ratified
PLH: we need to send the transition request by this Thursday …
<DaveBrowning> Link - https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/DCAT:-Draft-Transition-Request-to-CR
DaveBrowning: see link for a draft request
I have a couple of questions we can deal with right now
The request needs to point to an implementation report, so that the URL is defined
it could be empty at this stage …
PLH: I heard that not all of the use case requirements are met by this version of DCAT
DaveBrowning: We have a little bit of tidying up to do, but are almost finished
PLH: on the transition request, I suggest a couple of changes
People will want to know the changes since the last published Working Draft
I’ve made such tweaks, e.g. marking what features are at risk
We need to clarify which features are future priorities
PLH: as long as this is finished by Friday, it should be good. I plan to sit down with Ralph Swick then to review the transition request
Some discussion about a DXWG review meeting …
PWinstanley: does anyone else have any questions?
I want to give a big congratulations to the DCAT subgroup for getting this far
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99375/CONNEG_to_CR/results
PWinstanley: we still have a poll running until midnight Boston time tonight
PWinstanley: thanks the editors, and notes that we now need to find a way to put this work into safe moorings
ncar: The github branch has addressed some editorial matters
The single vote to not go to CR - a couple of issues were raised, I am in touch with the respondent to understand better
One of the issues raised is that the use of tokens is undermotivated
PWinstanley: are there areas that need to be marked as at risk for CR?
ncar: I am going to say no to that
some discussion around query strings
PWinstanley: there seems to be some differences between the different proposals being brought forward
ncar: a lot of people understand the HTTP details, but not in query strings …
<Zakim> RubenVerborgh, you wanted to discuss partitioning
RubenVerborgh: on the IETF perspective, we have a mechanism of content negotiation by profile
I am not a big fan of tokens
With hindsight, perhaps the requirements were too prescriptive
If no one is going to use query strings or tokens, we won’t have a problem
PWinstanley: can I ask PLH to outline our options?
PLH: either you move it to CR or you don’t
My initial impression is that it is a little shaky
There is a high chance that the Director might not approve the transition to CR
<annette_g> note that the poll is not closed yet either
PWinstanley: if the group is minded to move it to CR, we will need a transition request by this coming Thursday
<ncar> Conneg draft CR report: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Conneg:-Draft-Transition-Request-to-CR
any other questions?
PWinstanley invites people to review the draft transition request
<ncar> branche with improved definitions: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/dxwg/conneg-data-profile/conneg-by-ap/index.html
<PWinstanley> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99375/CONNEG_to_CR/results
PWinstanley: what do people think we should be doing, noting that there are several hours yet for the poll to finish
Is it the case that further discussion is needed to clarify matters?
PLH: I will need a story on the breadth of review for the Director
PWinstanley: a prudent suggestion would be to publish the spec as a WG Note
We would need to keep the WG open to maintain the work items
Could we bring the spec to CR at a later stage?
PLH: it would need to be part of the next Charter
The maintenance bit would be pretty straightforward
I can show you what I am doing in that respect with the verifiable claims WG
ncar: can I just clarify, that we need to present a story of engagement in respect to wide review
We have reached out and had feedback, so do we just need to document how the review was handled?
PLH: yes, look at how DCAT has addressed this
In the last 5 mins we’ve had feedback from the person who voted against moving to CR, and we have a way to address this in terms of outstanding issues, which mostly fall into the category of features at risk
PLH: you will indeed need to mark which features are at risk
<annette_g> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aprofile-negotiation
PLH: I see that Karen provided some feedback on Section 7
PWinstanley: any other input to this discussion?
[no]
what is the group’s risk appetite?
If the subgroup have address the outstanding work needed to submit a transition request this Thursday, are we going to support that?
… recognising that the work will move to a WG Note if the transition is rejected
<PWinstanley> acn annette_g
annette_g: for me it is more a question of whether the spec is good enough
kcoyle: there are comments from people who voted yes, and we should review those too
There is a sense that the spec isn’t quite cooked yes
my question to PLH is whether a REC needs to be fully polished?
PLH: if the changes needed are more than editorial then you shouldn’t move it forward to CR
PWinstanley: does anyone who voted yes want to talk about their feedback?
kcoyle: one of the reasons why I abstained is that there is quite a bit of discussion going on, the editors need to tie those issues up
PWinstanley asks kcoyle whether she thinks a WG Note is more appropriate than a CR?
kcoyle: it would be really shame for this not to proposed for transition to CR?
it would have been better if some of these issues had been dealt with a month ago
It may be a matter of showing that the issues have been resolved
PWinstanley: this needs to be done in transparent way, especially given the time pressure
kcoyle: with a clear wrapping up of the issues, some people may change their vote
we should extend the poll for another 24 hours, and well before then the editors ought to review any open issues and announce their resolutions so that people have the chance to change their votes
<antoine> +1 for extending the poll
PWinstanley: asks PLH if it is possible to extend this poll?
PLH: yes, but don’t quote me on this :-)
PWinstanley: Proposed: we extend the poll for a day
annette_g: what would be the best way for people to respond, given the multiple channels we have right now
kcoyle: are you talking in general or about a specific github issue?
annette_g talks about some email threads
kcoyle: it is up to the editors to gather up the loose ends
they need to show evidence that the loose ends have been addressed
Proposal: we extend the conneg poll by 24 hours
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<PWinstanley> +1
<kcoyle> +1
<antoine> +1
PWinstanley: please vote
<LarsG> +1
<annette_g> +1
<ncar> +1
<RubenVerborgh> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
Resolved: we will extend the conneg poll by 24 hours
Proposal: a clear evidence trail must be prepared by the conneg editors to show satisfactory resolution of the key issues raised in the poll
<PWinstanley> +1
<antoine> +1
<ncar> +1
<riccardoAlbertoni> +1
<LarsG> +1
Action: PWinstanley extend poll 24 hours
<trackbot> Created ACTION-377 - Extend poll 24 hours [on Peter Winstanley - due 2019-10-01].
<annette_g> +1
<kcoyle> +1
<RubenVerborgh> +1
<AndreaPerego> +1
Resolved: a clear evidence trail must be prepared by the conneg editors to show satisfactory resolution of the key issues raised in the poll
PWinstanley: anything else to discuss?
My thanks to everyone for their contributions
<kcoyle> we didn't get to issues to close - can we carry those over?
<LarsG> good night, all
<AndreaPerego> Thanks, bye bye
Maybe present: Proposal