Meeting minutes
Organizational
Ege: <Informs about progress over the last weeks>
… marked PRs and merged minor PRs
… other issues/PRs were marked "need review"
McCool: In main call we should remind people and go over process
Kaz: Policy page should be reviewed by whole IG/WG
McCool: At least remind people
Kaz: clarify "Who can make what contributions"
… and who owns repo
Ege: Should be IG
… I can add this information
Kaz: from external viewpoint explaining makes sense
Ege: I see
McCool: We might want to say "members of IG" can contribute
PRs
Articles Page
Ege: We reviewed the PR and we would like to merge
… it's about articles..
… not contentious articles
… including W3C keyword
… PR contains small policy document as well
Kaz: Policy should be reviewed by the whole group
… need to clarify what "W3C" means in the policy
McCool: like "members of W3C WG"
… could also say "written by W3C staff" like testimonial page
Kaz: "W3C Team" might be better
… press release is made by W3C Team.. representing the whole W3C based on the W3C Process.
McCool: Disclaimer missing about "accuracy"
… something is wrong or no longer true
Kaz: Clarifying policy is important.. but how was a given article chosen?
Ege: we worked together.. also Coralie approved for example the JSON schema article
McCool: Do we need additional policy how to make decision?
Kaz: I would point to IG/WG and not only the marketing task force
… marketing TF is point of contact
<kaz> s/and no only/instead of mentioning only/
Ege: Will bring that to main call tomorrow
W3C API Migration
Ege: looked in W3C API
… looks promising
… we would like to use server-side API...
… for example check every day for update and create static page
<kaz> example of resources on W3C APIs: https://
Kaz: I have been involved in API development
… please see newer references (links above)
… adding link to database page seems fine to me also
… technically it is better if maintenance is as easy as possible
Ege: using API reduces maintenance already
… some information can come from W3C API
… some things are not possible.. there is no such database entry on W3C side
Kaz: in future we can think which pages could be removed pointing to other W3C resource
Ege: one downside is to loose readers when pointing to external page.. I prefer people are staying on our page
Next month meeting
Ege: I cannot do planned date
… 28th of February, would that work?
McCool: Works for me
Ege: Okay, I will update the wiki
<kaz> [adjourned]