Meeting minutes
minutes
Ege: March 8
… eclipse ditto, tool org, activities tab simplification, CG chairs and pages, jekyll previews, netlify, build status, CG links/template, CG collab, analytics
… any objections to publish?
… hearing no objections, will make official
PR 289 - dart_wot
Ege: PR from Jan Romann
… working on scripting API in DArt ecosystem
… can use like node-wot, but in dart
… this PR adds just adds a link to the tools page
… some issue with build, but feel we can merge
… merging
easy issues
Issue 275
McCool: issue 275, time loss when sleeping
… suggest closing unless I figure out how to reproduce it
issue 268
Issue 268
<kaz> Issue 268 - Using W3C Calendar
Ege: using w3c calendars, issue 268
McCool: suggest we grab the ICS files periodically, render the coming week
dape: we can use the calendarview tool
older issues
Issue 145
<kaz> Issue 145 - Press Release - Cleanup
Ege: issue 145, press release cleanup
… about 2020 press release for REC
McCool: I think in general it would be good to have a list of "publications"
… maybe under "Further Reading" in Documentation
<kaz> |Issue 275|scribenick: McCool|
Ege: would be more inclined to have a new page
… with a new page
McCool: agree, just want to think about how to restructure our existing content
Kaz: just to make sure, a question about the agenda for today, but are we going to talk about CG collab?
Ege: yes, later on the agenda
McCool: propose that we table the publication list and let someone come up with a proposal
dape: we need to keep specs (what W3C calls "publications" are specs) separate from external references to articles, etc.
McCool: agree, need to pick titles to keep clear what is a formal publication of the group
Issue 148
<kaz> Issue 148 - Jekyll Preview PRs
Ege: Jekyll previews
Ege: need to set up in a way that lets other access
… right now is on my personal account
McCool: think its ok if you just document it so we can recreate it if necessary, although ideally Systeam takes care of setting this up
Kaz: probably talking to the wrong person, team contact for accessibility
… need to talk to Systeam directly, send to sysreq@w3.org
discussion of CG collab
<kaz> Issue 219 - Should Marketing TF be in the Community Group
Ege: issue 219
… in general WoT TFs should work on reports, but this TF does not really do that
<kaz> Issue 288 - Collaboration with WoT CG
Ege: discussion moved to issue 288
… is a list of activities on task-forces/tf-marketing page
Ege: have some opinions, e.g. from ml on official communications from WG
McCool: explainers are probably in the wrong place, if we mean the official ones needed for wide review, etc.
Kaz: asked for this topic as a starting point
Kaz: if the CG takes over all marketing work, don't need marketing TF
… should start with expectations from our side
… feel this is bigger than one github issue
… and should be one of the main topics
Ege: so one topic is whether we move the whole Marketing TF or not
Kaz: ege, what was your own expectation?
Ege: any kind of "material" that is facing the public should be done via the CG
… would be open to closing the marketing TF
… official communications etc. can be done in the main call
… fairly rare
… just press releases for RECs, etc.
… even web page is not "official" publication
Cristiano: agree with ege that we move everything over to the CG
… it would be easier to handle different relationships, etc.
… wonder if we can do it incrementally
McCool: personally think we should just move the Marketing TF over to the CG, then deal with exceptions as they arise
… but what do we lose, e.g. staff support?
dape: also wonder what we gain, e.g. additional people joining
… needs to be a balance
Kaz: should have some brainstorming first about expectations
… CGs are different from WGs and IGs, no concrete support from staff
… for example, the marketing web page, etc.
… means anyone can make PRs to repo, for instance
… another example, want to maintain web pages, but don't have time, but would like support
Ege: questions regarding infrastructure, as CG we can ask, but they are just not "required" to do so
… possible if we agree
… regarding dape's question, we can also "ask" for a WebEx
… more likely if we have a close collaboration
… in some cases, CGs are unrelated to WG/IG; but in this case, there is a collaboration
McCool: perhaps what we need, as kaz said, is collect a set of expectations, roll up in a collaboration request to W3M etc
Kaz: right. and please note that before asking W3M or Systeam, we need to collect our own expectations
Ege: cris and I talked about this; one of the things we want to do is set up events with the community
… e.g. local meetings
… would ultimately like the community to be self-sustaining, get more manpower
… second part is to not be as tied to the constraints of WG/IG
Cristiano: similar opinion; regarding social accounts, would rather not split them into different channels, etc.
… would like one account that everything is published, so then need to clarify when there is an official announcement from the WG, etc.
Kaz: understand what you want, but need to clarify what we mean by "official announcement"
… these can be made by Systeam, etc.
… But CG members can also make PRs to add news items, etc.
Cristiano: for "official" things, I was thinking mostly about transitions, etc.
Kaz: everyone should be clear about who is representing
… for instance, Japanese CG holds events, but those are just Japanese CG
Cristiano: if we have just one channel, need to be clear who is speaking
McCool: I personally think channels exist for a reason, having separate channels for wg and cg is simplest
McCool: suggest we just forward from a WG channel to a CG channel, with a prefix
… then people can just subscribe to the wot-cg channels
Kaz: other factor is people have multiple roles and titles
… so need to be careful about what hats people are wearing
Kaz: for example, I have multiple hats: prof, w3c staff, japanese-person-at-large, etc.
Ege: generally fine to be affiliated with companies in the CG?
McCool: depends on whether you are making an official company announcement or not?
Ege: right, but company may have some general interest in supporting the community, etc.
Kaz: think we need to broaden our discussion, create some subtopics/subissues, and probably we need to generate a separate README.md for our policy as the results of the discussion.
Ege: main pillars are expectations of WG towards CG, CG towards WG, practical side (tools, gain/loss), working style
<cris> cris: I still think having two social accounts is not really the optimal solution.. :( it's already hard to build a good follower count on one account, plus it is not so obvious that people will subscribe to both.
McCool: suggest create some github issues for these "pillars"...
Cristiano: should we close this issue?
McCool: suggest we close, but create a common label for the new issues so we can group them
Ege: ok (adds comments to existing issue...)
other business
Ege: we did not get to it, but please look at the agenda, there were a number of other things we did not get to, will cover next time
<kaz> [adjourned]