Meeting minutes
minutes review
Sebastian: from nov 17
McCool: section on WG charter is a little confused, pls rename to WG Extension and Rechartering since we discussed both
Kaz: done
quick updates
IoT Tech Expo on Nov 30
Sebastian: McCool to speak at IoT Tech Expo
McCool: note 40 panel, 4 people, I will have only about 10m
Editors sync-up call
Sebastian: editor sync up, various cleanup topics
... want to avoid some contradictory assertions
... and also align and consolidate terminology and use cases into the appropriate document
McCool: note I was not able to attend due to timeslot but I did review the minutes and put topics on the discovery TF agenda
Lagally: would also be useful to have use cases for scripting, e.g. application runtime
... also discovery vs. profiles
... would be good for profile to insist that devices using the profile all support .well-known endpoint
... then we also remembered that we need a TD Ontology doc...
Kaz: the topic needs more discussion, so the conclusion during the Editors call was also discussing that during the TD call separately
McCool: we also need to discuss whether is should be frozen, how we deal with versions and bug fixes, etc
Architecture call
Sebastian: new (tentative) arch call at 5am EST/10am UTC
Lagally: going forward we may want to do another doodle...
WoT-JP CG update
mizu: discussion on how to run the group's discussion, e.g., using projects. after getting conclusion, would like to have an online event to start actual work.
IG charter
Sebastian: for IG charter, have prepared, got some feedback, did some updates, found some more typos, now have another update...
… in general IGs do not create specifications, only documents
… so various wording changes to address that
… we also removed the 3mo wide review; and no CR process
… and fixed the name change for ECLASS
Kaz: note there are two PRs updating the IG charter, one from Ralph, one from PLH
… probably better to merge the one from PLH first, which addresses the "Marketing TF"
… also added a plugfest history section
<sebastian> https://
proposal: after merging PR #1006 and #1008, resubmit the updated IG charter draft to W3M for approval
RESOLUTION: after merging PR #1006 and #1008, resubmit the updated IG charter draft to W3M for approval
WG extension
Sebastian: last week we agreed on 12mo extension, but W3M noted that we technically have to update the charter
… small updates only, to the dates
… but also to the patent policy 2020; AC review will take place
McCool: note that we can do editor's drafts for new deliverables during the extension, and technically can do publications for TD2.0, since it is in the current charter already
Kaz: I will make the changes to the charter
Sebastian: do we need another resolution?
Kaz: prev resolution was during arch call, so it would be best to have one today in the main call
<sebastian> proposal: group agrees to proceed with the 12month charter extension for the WoT WG with the requested changes from W3M following the recharter processes.
RESOLUTION: group agrees to proceed with the 12month charter extension for the WoT WG with the requested changes from W3M following the rechartering processes.
ACTION: kaz to work on the updated WG Charter with new end date
decision process
<kaz> wot PR 1005 - Asynchronous Review Process for Specification Changes
<kaz> rendered proposal
Ben: have a proposal, #1005, to allow us to resolve PRs without waiting for a call
… this would be specifically for specs, using github code review tools
… this is in line with the charter, which actually favors async decisions (calls are supposed to be provisional)
… would like to get feedback from the group, timescale on when this can be applied, etc.
Sebastian: my view is that I would agree in general, but depends on details
… makes sense especially for smaller editorial items
… and tools also help us to document the decision, e.g. why we decided
… on the other hand, if there is a complex decision to be made, the meetings are useful to get agreement
Ben: thanks for the comments; have proposed two different processes for informative and normative changes
… some things do need sync discussions; basically that is the fallback plan if consensus cannot be
McCool: details do matter, but in principle agree
… what is timeline?
Ben: don't really want to wait for the new charter
… would be helpful to speed up our current process, but understand people need time to review and update
McCool: perhaps we can aim for mid-Jan to adopt, but after some discussion and review?
Kaz: agree with McCool (that we need a clear process definition)
Lagally: is a good idea to discuss and formalize the review rules
… currently have no good rules, e.g. about how many reviewers we need, etc.
Lagally: and let's try out the process on this PR in particular
<Mizushima> +1 McCool
McCool: agree, and let's aim for mid-Jan to capture input and put it on the table again
Sebastian: will also discuss in main call
Sebastian: definitely I agree that small changes should follow an async process
McCool: I also think the issue closing process can be improved
… also TFs could start apply some bits of the proposed process informally, at the discretion of the TF (consensus needed)
Sebastian: ok, we will talk about this more in the TD call, would also be good to discuss in Arch and Profiles
marketing
Sebastian: new wiki pages, less space, same content
Sebastian: regarding liaisons, WISHI call next week, will attend, present TMs
… regarding OPC-UA, meeting with Jeff Jaffe planned
Lagally: section in use cases document for liaisons, some placeholders
… regarding wiki page reconstructions
Lagally: might be good to make it easier to find the main call, perhaps main web page
McCool: agree, let's discuss in marketing
Sebastian: let's start testing at 15 past
Sebastian: adjourn
<kaz> [adjourned]