Meeting minutes
for the agenda: thingweb/
Minutes Review
McCool: minutes are fine
McCool: any objections?
<kaz> Jan-25
McCool: minutes are approved
Playground fix
PRs
<kaz> PR 531 - Remove authorization key from client flow
merged
(GitHub got stuck, and PR review postponed)
Plan At-Risk Walkthroughs
(discussion on when/how to organize the event)
Kaz: we could have the walkthrough event as an event of the WoT CG and the WoT-JP CG. However, we WoT WG ourselves are responsible to clarify what we meant by each assertion
McCool: right
Kaz: so the third point on the agenda wiki, "Need clear policy for what it means to "pass" each at-risk assertion", should be the most important and need to be done before the event
McCool: right
… (put tentative proposed date as "week of March 20")
… (and JP version "week of March 27")
(discussion on necessary prework)
McCool: MD files, presentation explaining at-risk items
(resources to be put under wot-testing/events/devmtg-03-2023)
McCool: let's create a directory there
… also need to decide the date
… we're looking some time in March
Ege: some people have problem to make PRs for wot-testing repo
Kaz: wot-testing repo is marked as "homepage", which is informative
… so we should be able to merge all the proposed PRs safely if needed
Ege: ok
McCool: just created an area for the Dev Meeting
McCool: we can have subdirectories for necessary resources
… e.g., TD/atrisk-explanations.md
(generates the initial version at-risk list)
Kaz: OK with starting with this initial list
… but each spec TF should help us clarify the meaning of each assertion
Ege: TD should be OK
… but need clarification for Architecture
Kaz: right. that's why we need to ask each TF for help
McCool: ok
… will generate similar list for Discovery as well
mizu: do you know who have implementations for at-risk features?
… who to get contacted?
McCool: I'm already aware of one implementation
… and need a second one
… would expect the list to be short
Kaz: probably Mizushima-san's point is who to be invited to the Dev meetup
… meaning those invitees might have additional implementations which would cover the at-risk features
McCool: yeah
… probably, Takenaka, Bosch, etc.
… should send invitations to the CG participants as well
Kaz: have Bosch, etc., joined the CGs?
… if not, we should invite them separately
McCool: would use mailinglists for the invitation
Kaz: if some of the implementers have not joined CGs yet, we can create another ML, group-wot-implementers
McCool: sounds good
… will bring this question to the Architecture call tomorrow
… regarding Profile, let's talk about how to deal with that with Lagally next week
[adjourned]