Meeting minutes
previous minutes
<kaz> Aug-9
Daniel: we talked about TypeScript definitions types, now merged
… we moved issue 193 to other task forces
… also touched propose closing issues but we'll finish the discussion today
… minutes approved?
… ok
Quick updates
Daniel: we should keep in mind publication plan
… Semptember? we don't have any pressure
Open PRs
PR 331
Daniel: minor pr
<dape> docs: add readme about TS files and process, https://
Daniel: it's about the latest changes in typescript folder
… there's no readme under typescript folder
… the PR adds the two readmes
Cristiano: good to go :)
Daniel: should we wait for merge it?
Zoltan: don't need to wait
Daniel: ok merging
… no more open PRs
issues
<dape> Propose Closing Issues, https://
propose closing issues
<kaz> Issue 107 - Very high frequency updates
Daniel: issue 107 is very old
… it seems like the idea is to close the issue and move the discussion to TD
Cristiano: I don't think keeping it open would benefit anyone. let's move to TD task force
Zoltan: I'd move to TD task force too, but it doesn't hurt to keep it open
… also we should think about how this affect our API in any way
Daniel: it might change HOW the users use our API
Zoltan: we might need to add some parameter to InteractionOption
Daniel: when I said HOW I meant that people might decide to use Polling instead of observing if they can't handle event frequency
Kaz: Why don't we label the issue with "discussion with TD"
… and remove next iteration, it is quite vague
… maybe next charter? or out of scope
Zoltan: it is an optional change... deep down is about implementation
Daniel: it might be really complex and you will get not too much in return
Cristiano: I had the same feeling
Zoltan: we need to check the api desing to handle control flow transparently.
… we have streams now
… maybe we are missing the client hint to tell the other side how much it can handle
… I'd put this facts on the issue
… we need to solve the problem
Kaz: We can close the issue for the scripting api itself and move it to use case or profile
Zoltan: dave implementation is an use case
Kaz: not really a product
… I usually refer to business implementation
… echonet is an example
… Philips Hue another one
… research base implementation might be still fine but is it well connected ?
<zkis> https://
Zoltan: we can learn from open API for telemetry
Daniel: is it from intel?
Zoltan: no, but we can keep in mind its design
Daniel: closing or not, we have still to keep it track of it
<zkis> https://
Kaz: "next iteration" is vague... we failed to clarify and close the issue in a timely manner.
Daniel: it is a place holder to look for improvements
… but I see your point
Zoltan: the trivial answer is to use streams
Cristiano: yes exactly
Kaz: for example, with the MEIG, we are looking for further collaboration with WoT
… but we don't have a good use case description yet
Kaz: we should clarify actual use cases about how to handle streaming videos for WoT, e.g., streaming data, data cue and time synchronization.
Cristiano: about next iteration I agree that it is a little bit vague and do not incentive people into discussion
Daniel: ok, then remove "propose closing" and "for next iteration" labels
Cristiano: why don't we directly ask people to verify if the current api cover the feature described in the issue
Zoltan: ok
Daniel: ok commented
Daniel: I'd remove "next iteration" labels where it make sense
… for example issue 274 it was not really deferred but just an optional feature
Cristiano: suggestion: why don't we change next iteration to something more precise? next charter?
Daniel: I'm not sure that we are part of regular chartering process
Kaz: My proposal is to just put "enhancement" everywhere is possible, for example where we don't know the timing.
Cristiano: not sure, if it is actually equivalent
Kaz: since we approaching the end of this charter we should reach a consensus: either enachement or close.
… or clearly state which one should be close in this period frame.
… do we have any priority.
Zoltan: I don't have strong opinion. We have bigger problems, like discovery
Kaz: "next iteration" implied that the issues should have been closed by the end of this period when those issues were generated.
Zoltan: I would keep them open, just use better label
Cristiano: what about some legend on the labels?
Zoltan: should be fine
… also I think our time together should be more focused on features rather than house keeping
Daniel: ok. I'd create a table for labels
… PR will be available soon
adjourned