W3C

WoT Marketing

13 April 2021

Attendees

Present
Daneil_Peintner, Ege_Korkan, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_McCool, Philipp_Blum, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
Citrullin

Meeting minutes

Minutes

<kaz> https://www.w3.org/2021/03/09-wot-marketing-minutes.html March-09

<kaz> https://www.w3.org/2021/03/15-25-wot-minutes.html vF2F Day 6

Sebastian: We showed the new website and the subtitles for the video. Some discussion about Twitter publication.

Resolution about the Twitter discussion

Sebastian: Any concerns about it?

McCool: I have a blog post. I cannot publish it, since there isn't a main call. We should have an exception for these kind of cases.

Sebastian: I think that is a rare exception.

McCool: We should have an exception handling for it.

Sebastian: Let's discuss this in the main call.

Sebastian: Any concerns?

Sebastian: I don't hear any concerns, so the minutes are getting published.

wot-marketing minutes

Sebastian: We had some discussions about the new policy. We discussed this also in the main call.

McCool: The chinese captions have been reviewed.

Sebastian: Any concerns about the marketing minutes?

Sebastian: I don't hear any concerns, so they get published.

Blog post

McCool: I held of publishing it, because it kind of a launch blog post.
… there are also some images, I don't know where to put them.
… I reorganized the structure as well.

<kaz> PR 159 - Add screenshot of web site

McCool: There is some discussion about the wording "locked into frameworks". Maybe we should rename it to proprietary.

<kaz> PR 158 - Blog prep - animation announcement

Daniel: For me it would be okay to say locked into framework. I am fine with the text.
… there is no need to merge the blog post, because there is a blog area on the website.

Philipp: You might use nodeJS or something and still be locked into that framework. So, from a technical perspective you are still locked into a framework. So, I would rather call it locked into a platform.

McCool: propritary is meaning vendor specific. I would use the wording narrow vertical framework.

Philipp: Without the context of the W3C, I wouldn't know what narrow vertical framework means. So, I would rather use something else.

McCool: I am fine with vendor specific framework.

Sebastian: Maybe we should remove this part of the blog post.

McCool: I think it is a very important topic, so we should mention it.

Sebastian: So, your recommendation is to call it not locked into narrowed vertical frameworks.

Philipp: Just a second. Kaz and me prefer the wording "vendor-specific".

McCool: I am fine with vendor-specific. So, what do the others think?

Daniel: I think it also sounds better.

Sebastian: I don't have any passion about this.

McCool: The opening text on the webpage uses the same text. We should change it there as well.

Sebastian: Which one do we use?

McCool: We can use vendor specific and propose that in the main call.

Sebastian: Let's make a final decision in the main call then.

Multiple language support for the animation video

Sebastian: There is the need for a japanese translation. Kaz, you take care of it?

Kaz: Yes

Sebastian: We can ask Victor to review the french translation.

French translation PR 152

Translation github issue

McCool: We need a german reviewer. And also one reviewer for Japanese.

Daniel: I can do it for german.

Kaz: Mizushima-san and Toumura-san can take a look review it.

Mizushima and Toumura: Yes, can do.

Sebastian adds the username as reviewer to the github issue.

Renaming task force

Sebastian: You had some issue with the naming of task force?

Daniel: Yes, sometimes we write it together, sometimes in two words.

Sebastian: Just make a PR with a proposal.

Daniel: I will do it.

We'll use two-word notation for "Task Force".

Liaison partners on the website

Sebastian: I think we should list our liaison partners on the website.
… question is how we want to do it? We can add the logos of the partners.
… I am open for suggestions. Should we do it or rather not do it?

Kaz: It should be listed under the Interest group page.

McCool: We should go to the official liaison page and list it under there.

<kaz> https://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison official W3C liaison table

McCool: The icons are also below the task forces. We should fix that.

Daniel: I will do that as well.

McCool: We can also just put a link to this list.

Daniel: I just wanted to say the same. We can just link with the right filter.

McCool: We should double check, if the list is still correct.

Sebastian is checking the list.

McCool: There are some liaisons missing. We should add them.

Kaz: We can put our liaisons on the WoT welcome page, and then add a link to the W3C official liaison table page above. Note that the official liaison table has a specific process to change the information.

Daniel: Do we want to have the logos on our website or do we want to link to it?

McCool: Mentioning it besides the list is good. Getting logos can be a bit more complicated.

TUM lectures

Ege: I created the TUM lecture slide set. They don't contain any TUM related information.

Sebastian: Is this material we can put on the website?

Ege: I tried to convert it to proper pdf.

McCool: let's continue the discussion during the PlugFest call tomorrow

<kaz> [adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).