Meeting minutes
Agenda Organization
<mjk> pls send Webex
<kaz> W3C Process Document 2023 draft
Kaz: there is a 2023 process document draft. The biggest point we should be aware is the W3C Council when we get Formal Objections.
McCool: it seems that the
changes focus on the director and council but not on the
charter
… so we can hopefully ignore the changes in our
charter process
Charter Template
McCool: anyone can comment on the charter draft. We need group consensus
Kaz: We need to clarify the stakeholders of WoT activities such as liaisons and other related groups including CGs
McCool: I am providing a
new template under the wot repo
… you can render the document locally
McCool: we have 4 f2f
meetings in the previous charter, opposed to 3 that is the common
one
… no chair name yet
Sebatian: I have a comment on team contact list. Dave and Kaz were our team contacts now we have less. Can W3C provide another team contact? So 2 in total
McCool: I will merge this but put this in the charter
Kaz: we need to bring the draft charter to W3M and then negotiate the team resources with them
McCool: we have more than usual TFs
Sebatian: we started with 3, now only 1 active
Lagally: we should set our agenda and work first, and then discuss the effort for the team. So it makes sense to discuss this once
Lagally: what does FTE mean
McCool: Full Time Equivalent
Sebatian: we should aim for high FTE
Kaz: if the wg as a whole wants to, you can put a higher fte
Use Cases
Lagally: I have this
figure
… we lacked the requirements were lacking in the
previous process
… there was also no feedback loop
Lagally: we also do not know what is happening in the business side
Lagally: we should have a better view of the resources we have
McCool: we have some categories
McCool: I want to talk about the adoption policy as well, so how we can choose what is to prioritize
McCool: maybe some
dependencies as well. maybe digital twins are needed first for
accesibility
… the Issues 206 in use cases has my
comments
Sebatian: who is bringing the use case is important. Someone has to derive the work for that use case
Sebatian: which company drives the given use case
Ege: we can use the arch tf for helping with the process on deciding since they have an overview
Ege: Also the use cases are not technical enough to drive requirements
<kaz> (discussion on the policy; see also comments on the wot-usecases Issue 206)
<kaz> wot-usecases Issue 206 - Clarify Adoption Policy
Ege: and no way back to contact the initial people who put the use case
Cristiano: what should we do
with the feature request that come from issues in the individual
specs
… so the proposal here is more waterfall but a more
iterative one might work better
Ben: I agree with michael, ege and cris. The main lacking thing was a requirements document for each specification which caused confusion a lot
Lagally: We are on the same page that the process is not good
Lagally: we need to drive as many people as possible. Input from non-technical people is important
Lagally: we have some requirements documents actually
Kaz: like ben, I agree with everybody. Requirements should be also clarified as the Use Cases and to be published officially. We can start with the existing Requirements.md and the Requirements section of the Use Cases document.
Kaz: In addition, the workflow on getting what (use cases/requirements) from whom (which group/SDO/person) and how to document it on the IG side and then on the WG side should be also clarified.
David: google cloud iot core got killed. Have we given it a thought? W3C can give the abstraction that is needed
David: michael did a demonstration to connexxus which showed what WoT can do
David: how to bring a feature to a business information system is what WoT can answer
David: please consider the
events/shows like CES and National Retail Show
… to see what people are doing
Ege: turning generic use
cases into requirements means doing consulting work for the
companies, which I am not sure if we should do
… but I agree that we should get as many as input
as possible
McCool: should we split the chairing?
Sebatian: I can do wednesday
McCool: I will do some PRs
McCool's summary of today's discussion on wot-usecases Issue 206
Current Charter Extension
Kaz: before closing, we should talk about how long we should extend the current charter
McCool: let's put this in the agenda for tomorrow
Ege: we can merge the TD PR since it has been reviewed
McCool: we will merge the PRs and carry over the dicsussion for PRs to the actual charter
<kaz> [adjourned]