<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_
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
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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]