Meeting minutes
Approve previous minutes
Ege: Minutes look good to me.
… any remarks?
-> none -> minutes approved
Updates
Analytics
<Ege showing dashboard>
Ege: currently only I have access
… share report in monthly banner
… I can invite other to get this report also
Ege: FYI, report got into Gmail spam
Cristiano: Ahh, okay... i did not get any email
… maybe because of spam also
Ege: "documentation" page was mostly viewed one
… after landing page
McCool: map is also interesting
… most people from India
Daniel: didn't get email either.. think team-wot should work
Ege: team-wot is chairs only..
Daniel: Okay .. I see
Ege: Will add you Daniel
Cristiano: Still issues finding the report in mailbox
… we can resolver after the call
Issues
Unified Readme
https://
Ege: run into different readmes in repos
… suggest to synchronize
… Cristiano also mentioned the logo
McCool: agree with harmonizing readme
… suggest to also add latest publications
… and/or implementation reports
… should start with drafting one repo
… and then take it over for other repos
… starting with TD repo
Ege: Yes, TD has several deliverables
McCool: And TD hast *past* report also
Kaz: Clarifying expected topics is good ..
… however this is not a marketing issue
… maybe discuss it in editors/main call
McCool: marketing topic since it is about consistency
… we can work on template and show it in main call
Kaz: Agree, but should bring it back to main call
McCool: Yes, create a template like proposed-readme.md first
Ege: Agree
… back to logo discussion, https://
McCool: If we want to have it... it should be small
Cristiano: we don't have to block the other issue...
… and agree, it shouldn't be very BIG
Ege: can propose the style in template
New links to WGs
https://
McCool: We are still in draft
… will publish discovery next week
Ege: TD is fine
… nothing todo on this today
Kaz: w.r.t. the latest published draft.. we can get this automatically
Ege: Agree, should look into this
JSON Schema case study
https://
Ege: We talked with postman people and JSON schema people
… information needs to be published as the WG
… we are using JSON schema a lot
… got positive feedback from Coralie also
McCool: Agree
… should collect what we are using JSON schema for
… we use it to describe data (and validation)
… but we are also using it for describing semantics of data
… and in multiple places
Cristiano: different point of view: describe operation input and output
… absence of value can not be described (issue exists)
… we use JSON schema for validation
… and we have a special view.. e.g., extensions
McCool: lets describe use-cases and the limitations we are running into
<cris> +1
Ege: we also have "JSON Schema in RDF" document
Kaz: This is a liaison issue .. not just marketing
McCool: Agree
… someone needs to start writing the case study
Ege: Yes, kind of a press release.. with review phase
McCool: I plan to talk about it tomorrow in main call
Discussion
CG Collab: CG Charter
https://
Ege: the WoT CG own repo, see https://
… at the moment most of the referred documents are empty
Ege: Draft charter, see https://
McCool: coordination vs. reporting back paras should be merged
Ege: I merged MMCs suggestions
McCool: current text is ok
Kaz: I am ok with updated charter draft
… would like to repeat important points
… 1. clear whether you are acting as chair or as a person
… 2. updated charter draft is fine. need to think about concrete activity
<cris> Michael's lost suggestion: https://
Ege: concrete activity ? Do you mean web meeting
Kaz: we need to continue to clarify which part of scope/target by which group when we (=WoT-IG/WG and WoT-CG) start actual collaboration.
<Mizushima> +1 kaz
Ege: one thing about contribution mechanics
McCool: deliverable in favor of specification
Ege: limitation on chat platforms like gitter?
McCool: we should not be too specific
… like "organizing appropriate tools" ..
… CG not being responsible
Kaz: CGs use different mechanism
… handled by Wendy and Ian Jacobs.. not W3C license
… person by person license
McCool: Chat considered as contribution ?
Kaz: I personally don't think so, but should talk with the Communications Team to make sure
… CG should concentrate use-cases and requirements
… also I personally think technical spec work should be done by the WG/IG side
Cristiano: final directions makes sense
… can we also define code of conduct?
… just in case.. someone is violating the rules
Ege: I think we have one
https://
Cristiano: Should we gather a resolution? MMC asked to join in main call.
… like accepting charter proposal
McCool: Maybe send email also
… cleaning up draft and mention it in main call
Ege: Okay... will update draft as decided and send email
McCool: and mentioning "supporting the charter" instead of accepting
Kaz: I am wondering whether we have concluded the discussion?
… or shall we extend this call some more minutes
McCool: Okay, lets type in proposed resolution
<Ege> proposed resolution: The Marketing TF agrees to bring the WoT CG Charter Draft to the WoT IG Main Call on 06.07.2022 in order to get the support of the IG and start the 1 month review process at the WoT CG.
<Ege> proposed resolution: The Marketing TF agrees to bring the WoT CG Charter Draft to the WoT IG Main Call on 06.07.2022 to request the support of the IG and start the 1 month review process at the WoT CG.
RESOLUTION: The Marketing TF agrees to bring the WoT CG Charter Draft to the WoT IG Main Call on 06.07.2022 to request the support of the IG and start the 1 month review process at the WoT CG.
<adjourned>