Topic Admin
proposed: approve minutes of September 24
https://www.w3.org/2019/09/24-dxwg-minutes#ResolutionSummary
https://www.w3.org/2019/09/24-dxwg-minutes
+1
<annette_g> +1
<plh> +1
<SimonCox> 0 (not present)
<PWinstanley> +1
Resolved: approve minutes of Sept 24
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/169
PWinstanley: report on DCAT - has been accepted as CR (after a few comments relating to i18n)
… if not objections raised before Thursday it will be published. DaveR?
dsr: yes
PWinstanley: Many regrets from DCAT folks (taking a break, but we'll take care of anything in email)
… then clock starts on 30 days
plh: to DaveR need to send on Thursday, then there's a 28-day clock for publishing document.
… next milestone is November 14. Deadline for comments is October 31. That gives us one week
<SimonCox> q
plh: to moved to proposed recommendation (which is very fast)
PWinstanley: We need to elicit comments
<plh> https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2019-10-03&noFPWD=true
PWinstanley: what is the normal process for eliciting comments?
plh: at this point you have already solicited from the community at large
… now its getting comments from implementers
PWinstanley: it is in our interest to get comments as early as possible
… anything else we need to bear in mind?
plh: 31st is a Thursday, so working group has to decide on Tuesday, so you have start on 29th of October
PWinstanley: Thanks to plh for helping us in this
PWinstanley: last week we recognized that we were getting good comments on Conneg
… working to see if we could respond in time to go to CR
… turned out that there was more to do so could not go to CR in time
… options are noted in the agenda
… the ones that would lead to the best outcome are contingent on re-chartering of working group
… DCAT v2 goes ahead and then goes into maintenance mode
… before end of October need to refresh the charter with a new draft and present to w3c
… this would re-charter at the end of the year
… are people up for this? working on the new draft
… means we could continue with Conneg and it would go forward in the new charter
… will be a simple roll-over of membership including invited experts (as long as charter doesn't change significantly)
… any comments? questions?
… Lars is positive about this route so that Conneg can be completed
… if we don't do this, then Conneg becomes a note
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: comment - we need also to make a decision about whether we are going to consider the profiles guidance as a 'recommendation'
<PWinstanley> ... perhaps a discussion in email
PWinstanley: profiles guidance in scope of charter, so could be rec track in new charter
plh: could be included, if group supports it
kcoyle: depends on what future the group sees on it
SimonCox: concerned about evergreen of DCAT being mixed with conneg and profGui
PWinstanley: re-charter without change is easy; otherwise it's a different kind of work
SimonCox: it's the DCAT work that is different and needs a different type of direction
plh: doing rechartering with same items, is not a problem.
… would need to convince W3C that it needs a separate group for conneg and profiles
… doesn't say anything about how you are doing the work
… w3c may not go for that
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: based on what plh says, if we rewrite the charter with dcat being evergreen and moving to v3, can we change the wording ?
<PWinstanley> plh: yes, that's fine. the concern is the *scope* of the WG
<PWinstanley> kcoyle: hopefully we will have a draft soon for comment
<PWinstanley> plh: the charter doesn't influence how the group works on a day to day basis
<PWinstanley> plh: my advice is not to change the scope
<PWinstanley> ... I can give the verifiable claims where there is a shell WG to validate the work of a community group
PWinstanley: we've got things to think about
SimonCox: reason why I raise issue: at least we would want to separate the repositories - getting overwhelmed by github notices
… because it's all in same gh repo it's annoying
… coupling of work not as tight as originally conceived
plh: organization of gh repo does not have anything to do with the charter
<annette_g> Simon has a good point.
plh: some considerations (technical, we can go over later)
… cons is you will not have the same list of issues, so have to copy them over?
… forking doesn't copy issues
… have to copy and close
<PWinstanley> 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
<PWinstanley> ... sometimes issues are closed without full group consideration
<PWinstanley> ... we need to review the process
<SimonCox> 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!
good point, Simon
PWinstanley: yes, discuss with fuller group, and with Simon's point about github
PWinstanley: propose to close meeting now; we seem to know where we are with DCAT and are getting
… a good handle on Conneg
… try to get Conneg to CR in the next 6 weeks or so
… need a clear target for Conneg
Maybe present: dsr, proposed