Meeting minutes
Agenda
McCool: we need Lagally for the last item,
… I delayed some item to talk about invitations
… any problems?
… ok
Organization
Daylight saving
<kaz> DST changes (Member-only)
McCool: daylight savings happens at different times in Europe and America
… keep an eye on the calendar
… if you use invites the update should be automatic
Kaz: it starts March 12th
… sent an email with details
Issue PRs and status
McCool: added some labels
… if it needs detailed discussion I'd delay it
… but there are some issues that we can close today
Issue 20
<kaz> Issue 20 - Things to Fix
McCool: obsolete, I would close it
… any objections?
… ok closed it
Kaz: just to make sure, all the checkboxes within Issue 20 have dedicated separate issue for each including versioning and timeline. Right?
McCool: think so. will double check to make sure.
Issue 69
<kaz> Issue 69 - Define deliverables for WoT Architecture and WoT Thing Description
McCool: it overlaps with opened issues, but it was raised by Ben and I want to hear his feedback
Issue 71
<kaz> Issue 71 - Propose Chairs
McCool: we need chairs
… currently they are not defined
… we need to define a process for selection
… we can define a list of chairs in the issue
… but if you are not comfortable to be listed publicly use the mailing list
… Sebastian and I listed ourselves
… but lately we have other things going on
… and we cannot be fully commited
… personally I want to reduce my involvement to 40%
… similarly Sebastian
… having different documents could help splitting the workload
… if we are chair we cannot be task force leads as previously
Ege: does it influence only Taskforce roles?
McCool: probably also the editor role, we can't be editor of too many docs
… generally speaking we need more people
<Ege> +1 that we need more people
+1 for more people
McCool: community group is active we can ask there
Ege: we can email the group
Cristiano: I agree
McCool: we can mention nominations to the CG
… but of course they have to became members
McCool: we can have up to 3 chairs
Kaz: As you know, the W3C Process says that the chairs are appointed by the W3C Team. So I'll talk with the W3M based on the feedback from you all.
Sebastian: I would be happy to have more volunteer and leading task forces
… I would be happy to continue my chairing activity
… but I would like to be focused more on liasons
… like the OPC-UA
… more on dissemination activities
… to make WoT more established in the market
… that's why I want to step back a little bit in the TD but maybe co-chairing
… we will discuss it in today meeting
McCool: provide comments on the issue
Cristiano: where to volunteer for task force lead?
McCool: it's okay to provide feedback on the same issue, even if we are looking more for Chair candidates
Kaz: What is needed for the Charter document now is deciding the proposed Chair(s). We don't need to make decision on TF Leads now. You can still send your intention around TF Leads as well to the team-wot list, though.
Ege: is there any procedure on how we choose leads?
McCool: consensus on task leads
Kaz: working group is responsabile for that.
Issue #68
<Github> Issue 68 - Clean up Scope section headers
<kaz> related PR 70 - Use parallel verb structure for scope categories
McCool: English clean up
… change a noun phrase to verb
… now everything is consistent
… any objections?
… merged
Issue #65
<Github> Issue 65 - Move IG Relationship from Mission Statement to Collaboration
McCool: decided to defer
McCool: there was a proposal to improve it
Ege: I updated the PR accordingly to your comment
Issue 61
<kaz> Issue 61 - High Level Scope Description for TD and Binding
McCool: it sounds like it might be obsolete
Ege: I documented what we discussed in the TD call
McCool: I think this issue is to be discussed by the TD TF
… but it mentions also scope
… in the TD we can summarize the discussion into scope
… people want to work with user stories
McCool: user stories can be on two level
… use cases and issues
… using template is good
… but the issue should be discussed in the TD call
… and if the group feels that the scope needs updates
… it should create a PR
Kaz: I agree. we need concrete text for the scope section if we really need to update it.
Pr #73
<Github> PR 73 - Propose different naming for reusable connections
McCool: we had some discussion yesterday about reuse connections
… he uses stateful interactions
… Ben mentioned websocket
… it seems there is not a common understanding
… we can leave it out
… if we don't agree
Cristiano: I agree, we can leave it out if controversial but let's talk about this today
Kaz: The scope section describes the basic scope of the WG with several examples. We don't need to list everything within it.
PR 72
<kaz> PR 72 - Revise Liaisons
Sebastian: it is just homework from last discussion
… remove the MOCA statement and make it more abstract
… there is also ITU-T
Kaz: the Charter document requires to declare what is normative and what is not
… since the OPC UA binding will work on an informative note we don't need that much detail here
… We should put more text in the scope section where we state our will to work more with SDO from industry for WoT deployment.
… we can then link the relevant points under section "5.2 External Organizations".
McCool: ok I can merge the PR
… any objections by mentioning ITU-T
… any objections for merging?
Kaz: maybe some improvement on the English? side
McCool: it is ok
… we can do it later
… ok merged
… PR 72
… at this point we only have PRs that we should wait for more feedback
… but we still have more issues
Issue 71
<kaz> Issue 71 - Propose Chairs and TF Leads
McCool: I'm assigning myself and I will add Sebastian and myself as starting point
issue #62
<Github> Moving the core binding document into the TD
McCool: marking as TD discussion
… as other issues: 61
issue 37
<kaz> Issue 37 - Revise Liaisons
Sebastian: just closed it
Issue 33
<kaz> Issue 33 - TD and TM restructuring
McCool: TD issue
Issue 38
<kaz> Issue 38 - Versioning of Specifications
McCool: recap we are going to use semantic versioning
… think wot as system
<Ege> +1
McCool: we will also use the whole system as identifier
<dape> +1 WoT 2.0 makes clear that even *new* deliverables belong to the 2.0 family
McCool: in general next charter is going to possibly break old features
… that why we are using 2.x
Sebastian: one question what happen in the future?
… what if we need some fixes like TD?
McCool: we can go for 2.1
Kaz: as I mentioned last time, I'm not sure if this would be the best solution. There are already several precedents on version management within W3C, e.g., CSS spec families. So it's a bigger issue around spec versioning as W3C as a whole.
… So probably it would be better to have discussion with W3M and TAG as well. I'd like to start with talking with PLH.
<kaz> CSS Writing Modes Level 3 (part of CSS Level 3 spec family)
McCool: we can still work on a proposal
… level and version are similar
Kaz: Maybe we can still try a new mechanism, but it would be better to see the existing policy within W3C first.
… It is related to the versioning policy of W3C as a whole.
McCool: Given we're inviting PLH to the meeting tomorrow, we can add this in the agenda for tomorrow
Cristiano: system wide versioning is hard cause it forces all the subpart to follow the rule of the whole
McCool: I ok with the cons
mizushima: 2.0 is major, we must clarify the differences with 1.0
McCool: good point
… the question is how we document
Lagally: do we know of any breaking changes?
McCool: we do
… but not major things
McCool: I would remove version numbers in each sub document
… but are we commited with the document name?
Kaz: If we're not sure about the exact document name with version numbers, we can simply say something like "WoT Thing Description - updates" and "WoT Thing Description - New version".
McCool: I don't even say breaking or not breaking
Lagally: I like that
… talking about version number is too early
… let's base the decision on the real content of the documents
<cris_> +1
McCool: please read through the comments of issue 15
McCool: testing call in half an hour
[adjourned]