<TallTed> indeed, https://www.w3.org/community/solid/wiki/Meetings#20200116_1600CET now says "canceled"!

# participants - Kjetil - Justin - Ted # Agenda - Justin: points for the record should not be made on calls, for accessibility and traceability issues - Associate the content of oral discussions - Use the IRC pattern to minute and reference issues/PRs - Use of panels vs spec repos - associated issue in the Solid process ?( Justin) Not per se (Ted) - Process change PR discussion - how do we deviate from regular W3C process - Lack of IRC p[CUT]

<TallTed> scribe: nseydoux_

Traceability of items discussed over calls

justin: topics discussed over calls should be explicitely associated to github issues to enable traceability and to give opportunity to stakeholders not present at the meeting to access the whole reasoning

ted: the w3c has exchange patterns that have been proofed over time that would benefit the Solid community, eg mail discussion over gitter, or issue discussion over PR
...: discussing what the problem is (and getting consensus on that) before proposing solution setps the stage for constructive debate

kjetil: linking calls discussion to issue discussion would also reduce the feeling of redundancy of the points that are beoin argued over

<KjetilK> https://www.w3.org/community/solid/wiki/Meetings#20200116_1600CET

<justinwb> https://github.com/solid/process/issues/188

ted: Solid is not quite following the W3C process (while using the w3c infrastructure), which generates a discussion hich is hard to keep up with on many channels
... one wiki page should be associated to each meeting, as opposed to updating the same wiki page with multiple meeting details

csarven: Agrees on the suggestion to break down wiki pages

<justinwb> fwiw - full scribing has been working well on interop panel calls

csarven: minutes summary is not enough, but full scribing might be hard to achieve, so suggestion to create more elaborate minutes while not necessarily following the full-fledged w3c process

tallted: discussion summary is not sufficient, and scribing can be completed on the fly by participants to fix wording issue in order to capture the essence of the discussion

justin: on interop calls, hackmd is used as a cooperation infrastructure to host interactive edit of the minutes

KjetilK: decisions have been made so far mostly in issue discussion, or in f2f discussion that is usually then recorded back into issue discussion, rather than on calls

csarven: proposal to have quick strawpolls during the calls in order to capture rough consensus on discussed issues

<justinwb> +1

<TallTed> +1

<TallTed> ack

<KjetilK> +1

<KjetilK> +1 to TallTed :-)

<justinwb> +1

tallted: polling during calls reflects whether the majority or not shares the view that is discussed

<justinwb> 1+ Issues before PRs

<justinwb> err +1

tallted: anything more substantive than grammar and formatting should be an issue before a PR

<KjetilK> +1

justinwb: participating in calls is hard for many stakeholders, and it should not be a requirement to make sure one's voice is heard
...: having the reasoning behind the proposals as part of the minutes makes it easier to provide constructive feedback and to work on the issues at hand more efficiently

<TallTed> In sum -- Meeting notes/minutes are good. More detailed notes are better. Issues should reference those minutes/notes when possible. PRs should link to issues; discussion should mostly be on the issues, not the PRs.

<justinwb> +1 to save text chat

csarven: irc chat should be saved as additional context to the discussion and to the minutes
...: the wiki page associated to the meeting could have a link referencing the saved chat

<justinwb> +1 on using what exists

<csarven> Aside: I've reverted the cancel.. and https://www.w3.org/community/solid/wiki/Meetings#20200116_1600CET is back up

tallted: the w3c infrastructure is sound and should be really considered befopre moving on with other comm channels

<Zakim> KjetilK, you wanted to change topic :-)

<justinwb> +1 to keeping panel repos

spec issues vs panel disussions

kjetil: keep the panel repos, as this is the registered process

<KjetilK> +1 to that

<TallTed> +1 keep panel repos until/unless there's wide agreement that they're causing problems that can't be solved without collapsing them into one

justinwb: abide by the process and have a process discussion before proposing big process changes
...: especially regarding panel repo removal

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)

Default Present: KjetilK, TallTed, justinwb, nseydoux_, Sadie, csarven
Present: KjetilK TallTed justinwb nseydoux_ Sadie csarven
Found Scribe: nseydoux_
Inferring ScribeNick: nseydoux_

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


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: 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.)