Meeting minutes
<tguild> [introductions]
W3C Advisory Committee supported our rechartering, W3C Management and Carine agreed for her to take over as Staff Contact and for me to join Peter as co-Chair from Geotab
Ted: we have all these breakout calls, some less attended and VSS+VSSo call preceding this meeting and wonder if we should refactor it somewhat. I'll pose to group mailing list too since this time likely not good for some who may otherwise attend
Rudi: the time is good for me on West Coast
Ted: we need something friendly for CEST and PDT
Ulf: it is good for me
Arman: one hour later would be better with kids' bedtime
Ulf: I would prefer earlier than later
Adnan: good for me
Gunnar: good for me and use to it
Carine: not too bad for me, would also prefer hour later
Ted: Sebastian suggested this time was bad for him but we have Erik
Erik: we will make it work
Ted: should we have a 2 hour meeting - combine the VSS/VSSo and Auto WG call in one with people attending section they need to be at?
Ulf: I'd rather keep it like it is, having people drop would be distracting
Peter: agree with Ulf, separation helpful even if it causes people to be late on occasion
Ted: any thoughts on the various breakout calls, too many?
Gunnar: we should see how things evolve, may want to increase VSC (RPC)
Ted: Philippe Le Hegaret who does project management across the W3C WG and I met to discuss transition and state of things. He is advising us to proceed with bringing VISSv1 towards REC and we can choose to stay in CR if we get too much work coming from horizontal review (privacy, security, internationalization, accessibility)
Carine: we should talk to Philippe more but there are two strategies, stay at CR indefinitely and even evolve it or move to REC
Peter: we are more focused on the next generation, if there is work necessary on previous it might not happen
Carine: depends on when the next generation is really going to take over and whether we want to drop the previous one
.if it is going to be considerable amount of time or not fully replacing then maybe better to keep it
.some do minor iterations at CR but runs risk of incompatibilities or incomplete test suite
Ted: Philippe also encouraged us to publish v2 as FPWD and not worry about trying to align with Bosch and Renesas since we incorporate changes from them later
Carine: is it a minor improvement or vastly different
Ted: not fully backward compatible and adds a fair amount @@Link
Peter: I wanted to see if there were any thoughts from that meeting, I was not able to attend much myself
.believe Ulf did a demo
Ulf: yes, I demo'd our VISS server used in CCS project in addition to the whole stack from vehicle to db in cloud
.ran our HTTP solution, WebSocket and experimental MQTT
.you can probably find video for it, believe most presentations were recorded
.I thought there were quite a few very interesting presentations and worthwhile for people to look at them
Gunnar: we have most of the recordings and will dig up link and drop in chat
.we had pretty full content on a number of different areas within CVII and other areas
.some good keynote speakers
.we also had a security track
Peter: how was online format?
Gunnar: disasterous the first day, issue with our platform and doing some re-recordings
https://
https://
Erik: we have been discussing is some aspects of VISSv2 should be optional
.should we have a generic concept that is mandatory in order to have compatibility and be seen as a VISS server
.if that is the case we need to be able to make clear to clients what the compatibilities are
Ted: agree to having optional features in general, want to be careful which in particular and we would need some form of discovery for clients to be able to understand what is available
Ulf: agree we can have a base line of mandatory components but then need something in the protocol for the client to understand what is supported
.we need to figure out a solution for that and give client a straight answer as to what is available without having to figure things out by trying and receiving errors
.that is inefficient, inelegant
MagnusG: I agree that would cause needless traffic to client and server
[adjourned]