19:48:22 RRSAgent has joined #dxwg 19:48:22 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/10/01-dxwg-irc 19:48:38 rrsagent, make logs public 19:48:48 chair: PWinstanley 19:49:21 regrets+ DaveBrowning, riccardoAlbertoni, AndreaPerego 19:49:36 meeting: DXWG Plenary 19:49:56 agenda: https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2019.10.01 19:50:05 present+ 19:50:14 rrsagent, create minutes v2 19:50:14 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/01-dxwg-minutes.html PWinstanley 19:55:42 kcoyle has joined #dxwg 20:02:53 SimonCox has joined #dxwg 20:05:23 present+ 20:06:53 annette_g has joined #dxwg 20:07:01 plh has joined #dxwg 20:07:52 present+ 20:08:19 present+ 20:08:32 present+ 20:08:33 scribenick: kcoyle 20:09:01 Topic Admin 20:09:06 Topic: Admin 20:09:25 proposed: approve minutes of September 24 20:09:30 https://www.w3.org/2019/09/24-dxwg-minutes#ResolutionSummary 20:09:41 https://www.w3.org/2019/09/24-dxwg-minutes 20:11:15 +1 20:11:16 +1 20:11:20 +1 20:11:23 0 (not present) 20:11:25 +1 20:11:47 regrets+ DaveBrowning (probable), riccardoAlbertoni, AndreaPerego, Nick Car 20:12:08 resolved: approve minutes of Sept 24 20:12:11 https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/169 20:12:43 PWinstanley: report on DCAT - has been accepted as CR (after a few comments relating to i18n) 20:13:27 ... if not objections raised before Thursday it will be published. DaveR? 20:13:31 dsr: yes 20:13:58 PWinstanley: Many regrets from DCAT folks (taking a break, but we'll take care of anything in email) 20:14:15 ... then clock starts on 30 days 20:14:41 plh: to DaveR need to send on Thursday, then there's a 28-day clock for publishing document. 20:15:12 ... next milestone is November 14. Deadline for comments is October 31. That gives us one week 20:15:21 q 20:15:29 ... to moved to proposed recommendation (which is very fast) 20:15:36 q- 20:15:43 PWinstanley: We need to elicit comments 20:15:44 https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2019-10-03&noFPWD=true 20:16:00 ... what is the normal process for eliciting comments? 20:16:19 plh: at this point you have already solicited from the community at large 20:16:36 ... now its getting comments from implementers 20:17:00 PWinstanley: it is in our interest to get comments as early as possible 20:17:09 ... anything else we need to bear in mind? 20:17:41 plh: 31st is a Thursday, so working group has to decide on Tuesday, so you have start on 29th of October 20:18:06 PWinstanley: Thanks to plh for helping us in this 20:18:15 topic: conneg 20:18:39 PWinstanley: last week we recognized that we were getting good comments on Conneg 20:18:57 ... working to see if we could respond in time to go to CR 20:19:13 ... turned out that there was more to do so could not go to CR in time 20:19:25 ... options are noted in the agenda 20:19:56 ... the ones that would lead to the best outcome are contingent on re-chartering of working group 20:20:13 ... DCAT v2 goes ahead and then goes into maintenance mode 20:20:38 ... before end of October need to refresh the charter with a new draft and present to w3c 20:20:47 ... this would re-charter at the end of the year 20:21:35 ... are people up for this? working on the new draft 20:21:51 ... means we could continue with Conneg and it would go forward in the new charter 20:22:18 ... will be a simple roll-over of membership including invited experts (as long as charter doesn't change significantly) 20:22:34 ... any comments? questions? 20:23:06 ... Lars is positive about this route so that Conneg can be completed 20:23:47 ... if we don't do this, then Conneg becomes a note 20:23:50 q+ 20:24:15 ack kcoyle 20:24:33 q+ 20:24:57 kcoyle: comment - we need also to make a decision about whether we are going to consider the profiles guidance as a 'recommendation' 20:25:06 ... perhaps a discussion in email 20:25:47 PWinstanley: profiles guidance in scope of charter, so could be rec track in new charter 20:26:19 plh: could be included, if group supports it 20:26:38 ack SimonCox 20:26:56 kcoyle: depends on what future the group sees on it 20:27:33 SimonCox: concerned about evergreen of DCAT being mixed with conneg and profGui 20:28:06 PWinstanley: re-charter without change is easy; otherwise it's a different kind of work 20:28:35 SimonCox: it's the DCAT work that is different and needs a different type of direction 20:28:41 q+ 20:29:16 ack plh 20:29:49 plh: doing rechartering with same items, is not a problem. 20:30:05 ... would need to convince W3C that it needs a separate group for conneg and profiles 20:30:19 ... doesn't say anything about how you are doing the work 20:30:34 ... w3c may not go for that 20:30:51 q+ 20:31:07 ack kcoyle 20:31:32 q+ 20:31:40 kcoyle: based on what plh says, if we rewrite the charter with dcat being evergreen and moving to v3, can we change the wording ? 20:31:57 plh: yes, that's fine. the concern is the *scope* of the WG 20:32:15 kcoyle: hopefully we will have a draft soon for comment 20:32:45 plh: the charter doesn't influence how the group works on a day to day basis 20:33:02 plh: my advice is not to change the scope 20:33:41 ... I can give the verifiable claims where there is a shell WG to validate the work of a community group 20:34:06 PWinstanley: we've got things to think about 20:34:18 ack SimonCox 20:34:54 SimonCox: reason why I raise issue: at least we would want to separate the repositories - getting overwhelmed by github notices 20:35:21 ... because it's all in same gh repo it's annoying 20:35:32 ... coupling of work not as tight as originally conceived 20:35:46 plh: organization of gh repo does not have anything to do with the charter 20:35:47 Simon has a good point. 20:36:09 ... some considerations (technical, we can go over later) 20:36:37 ... cons is you will not have the same list of issues, so have to copy them over? 20:36:47 ... forking doesn't copy issues 20:37:00 ... have to copy and close 20:37:33 q+ 20:37:51 ack kcoyle 20:38:37 kcoyle: something for email or a future meeting is to decide what we might want to do in terms of changing procedures, esp re: PR and issues for closing for plenary meetings 20:39:01 ... sometimes issues are closed without full group consideration 20:39:12 ... we need to review the process 20:39:30 now would be a good time to split the repositories because the DCAT issue-list has been cleaned up a lot and would be easier now than at any time in the last two years! 20:39:49 good point, Simon 20:40:37 PWinstanley: yes, discuss with fuller group, and with Simon's point about github 20:41:00 q? 20:41:21 PWinstanley: propose to close meeting now; we seem to know where we are with DCAT and are getting 20:41:30 ... a good handle on Conneg 20:42:15 ... try to get Conneg to CR in the next 6 weeks or so 20:42:25 rrsagent, create minutes v2 20:42:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/01-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle 20:43:01 ... need a clear target for Conneg 20:43:07 rrsagent, create minutes v2 20:43:07 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/01-dxwg-minutes.html kcoyle 20:53:03 annette_g has joined #dxwg