<plh> Slides: https://slides.com/torgo/tag-update-ac-may-2019#/

<torgo> hi!

<torgo> Dan here.

<scribe> scribe: yves

DanA will present slides from May 2019 AC meeting.

<plh> --> https://slides.com/torgo/tag-update-ac-may-2019#/0/2 TAG participants

<plh> --> https://slides.com/torgo/tag-update-ac-may-2019#/0/4 Current work

<plh> --> https://slides.com/torgo/tag-update-ac-may-2019#/0/5 Design Reviews

<plh> --> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues Spec reviews

<plh> --> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/new?assignees=&labels=Progress%3A+untriaged&template=010-specification-review.md&title= Specification review request

<Ralph> Client-side API Design Principles / A Collection of Interesting Ideas, 16 October 2019

<plh> --> https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/ethical-web-principles/ W3C TAG Ethical Web Principles

<Ralph> Working with the TAG

<Ralph> Explainers

<Ralph> What happens during a TAG review?

<plh> --> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/432 Timed Text Markup Language (TTML2) 2nd Edition

<plh> --> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/403 WebXR Device API

<Zakim> weiler, you wanted to ask how TAG achieves breadth of coverage in this process

weiler: TAG member have specific knowledge, how can you ensure that a spec is reviewed on all aspects?

dka: we are looking at issues and ask specific members of the TAG if there is an issue that they are an expert in

we usually also assign relevant people during the triage phase

mc: review happens quite late in the process, could it be done at the use case and requirement phase?

also lots of documents presented are browser-oriented, which is not the case for all specs

dka: not sure we have the bandwidth to do reviews during the requirements phase

mc: you said that it would be good to have the TAG involved earlier than the late phase.

dka: the right point is when things are getting incubated, like what happens in the WICG

I agree that there is a lot of focus on browser-related thing

if there are review request outside of the browser, we would like to have a specific focus request instead of asking to review the whole document

mlagally: we put lots of work on the explainer document, would it help to walk through it in a call?.

dka: the explainer is _not_ for TAG reviews, it is good for the Working Group itself and should be updated even after TAG review. as a path toward documentation

mlagally: you want written document first rather than discussion?

dka: yes

<Ralph> [the explainer is also useful for others outside the WG to understand the tech the WG is working on and to plan their own time allocation for reading Working Drafts]

<kaz> kaz: As the team contact of the WoT WG, I can understand both the frustration of the WoT guys and Dan's suggestions. I think we need a nicer mechanism for our deeper collaboration. For example, one possibility is WoT guys' providing a project review to the TAG and other related group guys, and then have actual TAG review (and wide reviews). Actually, that is one of the action items for the WoT WG already :)

dka: I encourage people to send TAG reviews earlier and consider that we are not here to block people, more to help thing moving.

jeff: thank you dan for the presentation but also for your leadership.

<torgo> tag.w3.org

<torgo> @w3ctag

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/\//
Succeeded: s/we put lots of work on the explainer document/we put lots of work on the explainer document, would it help to walk through it in a call?/
Succeeded: s/@@@/As the team contact of the WoT WG, I can understand both the frustration of the WoT guys and Dan's suggestions. I think we need a nicer mechanism for our deeper collaboration. For example, one possibility is WoT guys' providing a project review to the TAG and other related group guys, and then have actual TAG review (and wide reviews). Actually, that is one of the action items for the WoT WG already :)/
Default Present: Ralph, Michael_McCool, Bernard_Aboba, Atsushi_Shimono, PLH, jeff, dom, Yves, Kaz, xiaoqian_, ivan, Roy, Ian, tmichel, weiler, chris
Present: Ralph Michael_McCool Bernard_Aboba Atsushi_Shimono PLH jeff dom Yves Kaz xiaoqian_ ivan Roy Ian tmichel weiler chris Michael_McCool_Bernard_Aboba Chris_Needham Dan_Appelquist Francois_Daout Sebastian_Kabisch Michael_Lagally Taki_Kamiya Judy Brent_Zundel
Found Scribe: yves
Inferring ScribeNick: Yves

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)