Meeting minutes
Review issues, PRs and Status
McCool: I reviewed issues and PRs
… let's review them, most are pretty simple
PR 51
<Github> w3c/
McCool: I did a major cleanup
Kaz: There are also many issues on the wot repo. We should clean them up before starting the discussion on further updates on the wot-charter-drafts side.
McCool: let's review after this one
… this is a cleanup for rendering
<McCool> w3c/
McCool: any objection to merge (none)
(merged)
<Github> PR 51 - Details cleanup : updated old JSON-LD context
issues in WoT repo
<kaz> issues and PRs on the wot repo with "WG New Charter Plans 2023" label
McCool: multiple were moved
… let's review those that are marked as "WG New Charter Plans 2023"
… we can close these that were moved
Kaz: you can ask submitters if they were moved
McCool: I believe we are already done with these
… I think we also moved the PR
… I'll close all of these, if you feel that it was incorrect, please open a new issue and bring it up in the main call tomorrow
… If there are any further issues, please bring them up in tomorrow's main call
<Github> w3c/
McCool: there are two PRs that are solving the same issue wrt. privacy and accessibility
<kaz> s/issue #51//
McCool: we could remove them both or modify the description
<Github> w3c/
<Github> w3c/
<Ege> +1 to for in addition to hz review
Kaz: what is added with this PR - any specific text for a11y?
<McCool> w3c/
McCool: we should only mention these groups if we do more than horizontal review
… trying to be consistent with what we do for PING
Kaz: if we want stronger collaboration that would be great, however the text could be improved
McCool: was copied from last charter
<Ege> +1 to kaz
Kaz: we might need another improvement to the text
McCool: let's merge and ask the a11y group for suggestions on improved text
Kaz: we have to get review by these groups, we can ask for their comments even earlier
Daniel: Those groups are in the W3C process, why do we mention them at all? Charter could be shorter
Lagally: shorter is better
Ege: horizontal review is only at the end of publication period, feedback at the end may be too late
… what about i18n?
McCool: if we work proactively with these groups, we should mention it
Kaz: these days, those 4 horizontal groups are default groups for collaboration in the W3C
<kaz>
In addition to the above catch-all reference to horizontal review
which includes accessibility review, please check with chairs and staff
contacts of the Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group to
determine if an additional liaison statement with more specific
information about concrete review issues is needed in the list below.
Kaz: there's a specifc note about that in the template
… if we think about stronger a11y support that's great, but we should have preliminary discussion with them and ask them how to handle it
McCool: if we start horizontal reviews early, we still need a document to review
Kaz: we should talk with these groups and discuss what to do in the charter
McCool: I suggest we merge the text and work proactively with these groups
… suggest we merge the text
… before we call this done, we should have it reviewed by these groups. will keep the issue open
… will close wot issue#49 w/o merge
s /idss/iss/
merge request: #54
<Github> w3c/
Ege: I fixed the title
… there is some overlapping text
McCool: I have another PR that modifies the background section
… we don't want to change the template, this belongs into our draft
Kaz: when I raised the issue about meeting title, I suggested to better describe our intentions
… mission and basic policy
<kaz> Issue 54 - Motivation and Background
<kaz> PR 54 - Motivation and background title
McCool: if we don't add the header, the table will be split - this cleans up the section headers
… this is a bug fix.
(merged)
McCool: we were doing bottom up collection of work items, Kaz suggested top down
… we have two choices: delete all details, take them to a separate document, or keep them.
Lagally: there are too many details in this section, the second part could be condensed into a single paragraph. The first part of the scope serction is fine.
Kaz: I agree with both of you
… we can think about adding new features about wider industry collaboration
… it would be nicer to describe the relationship between the major bullet points above and the detailed items below if we want to keep the detailed items.
McCool: this is good enough to start the AC review
Ege: I have a pull request about 3 other items, I'm ok with the current text, but it misses binding templates
… I agree with adding this part, however don't agree with the content
Lagally: this discussion is premature, we first have to define the scope
McCool: any objection to merge, we can always refine this later.
… I commented out details about plugfests and open source implementations - we can always bring it back
Kaz: I like to agree with McCool, Lagally and Ege, suggest we merge this PR and think about further improvements next
PR #55
<kaz> PR 55 - Reorganize and consolidate work items
<kaz> Issue 24 - Consolidate and Refine Work Items and Describe Higher-Level Goals
Ege: I restructured the description significantly
McCool: We have several topics such as onboarding and geolocation - we need a normative security deliverable
… I put this normative work item into architecture
… if we want a prescriptive onboarding process and also normative security requirements, we can use architecture
… I object to deleting this
… onboarding is a pretty big missing item, security TF is considering this very important
Ben: not sure what onboarding relates to, could be put into discovery
McCool: we could do that
Ege: I objected to the security deliverable, not sure about the reason. I agree with Ben Francis, that it belongs into discovery.
McCool: Let's review the rendered version
<luca_barbato_> I also agree with Ben Francis, I was about to say about the same thing about Onboarding and Discovery being close
McCool: Please review the PRs and let's rediscuss logisitcs in tomorrow's main call
* ml: I have to leave
Kaz: sounds to me that unfortunately we don't have enough consensus yet for generating actual text, would suggest we once stop generating/discussing Pullrequests but should concentrate on discussion to clarify people's expectations first.
<kaz> [adjourned]