Meeting minutes
minutes
<kaz> Mar-15
Ege: there is a typo in the second section
Ege: then the initials are not correct
… we will review PRs also today
… I had an action item but I forgot
… we defined the date for dev meeting
… then we discussed about slides (which I did)
… but the minutes look short
Kaz: it was a short meeting
Ege: any problems?
… ok
… minutes accepted
Quick updates
Ege: any updates?
Pull requests
PR 536
Ege: there was a problem with the CI script
<Ege> PR 536 - Use Job summary instead of PR Comment for discovery-coverage-report
Ege: but the PR should fix it
… I like the rendering
Cristiano: +1
Ege: we should use it for arch and td as well
… we can ask Toumura-san
Ege: ok let's merge this PR
Kaz: is there any additional configuration needed from the support team?
Ege: no it is happening inside github
Kaz: do we want to apply this configuration to other repositories?
Ege: I think is just for testing
… it would be nice to have
Kaz: we can mention this change in the main call
… and ask what task force leaders
Ege: it would be nice to have it before dev test
Kaz: it would be nicer to mention this in the main call
Ege: just to clarify this change will only focus on testing repository
<kaz> kaz: If everybody is reading each Issue and PR of the wot-testing repository in detail, we don't need to explain this. However, it's not the case, so it would be nicer to mention this mechanism to everybody.
PR 533
Ege: seems a draft
… not really relevant anymore after presentation
… propose closing
… any comments?
issues
Ege: no new issues
Developer meeting
Ege: we started writing the readme
… it would be better to name the meeting to At-Risk Assertion Resolution Meeting
… developer meeting feels more open to newcomers
… renaming
… main work to do is to update the readme
… we will try to invite CG people too
<Ege shows slides about TD assertions>
Ege: they are review by McCool
… there is also a deck for Architecture but they are not reviewed by McCool
Kaz: it's ok to think TD and Architecture as seperated collections. but we need more explaination about the goal of the event and the intentions of the assertion author.
Ege: some of this aspects are already done
… but we can do a initial introduction to both slides
Kaz: we need to mention the w3c process required us to do that. The main purpose is not checking if the implementations are validly implemented, but if the specification is implementable. Also to see the interoperability of the spec.
Ege: I'll add it
Ege: it would be nice to have a concrete deadline
… which are the new plan?
Kaz: it is up to us, if we want to move ahead even if not all the features are resolved
… we want to update the text after the transition we have to start all over again
… basically all depends with the implementation status.
Ege: I noticed a problem with the dealine set in the slides and the one noted in the charter wg-extension-plan
Kaz: everything should be done by the end of May
… we have still the option to remove the unimplemented features
… or to update the draft if we have correctly identified the at-risk features.
Ege: what is in the slides is correct?
Kaz: yes that is what I proposed
Ege: it just to provide a deadline
Kaz: but we need to take in consideration developers avaiability
… the goal should be clearly explained
Kaz: maybe it is better to say "proposed deadline"
Ege: ok
<Ege shows slide structure>
Cristiano: resolution is a little bit misleading
Ege: what about takeways or developer guides
Kaz: In my understanding today we should work on the goals, intention and supplement additional information to the specification text
… Architecture is more difficult to understand
Ege: I agree with the suggested structure
… but I would add link to context
Kaz: link is right
… implementation report has already links
… we can use it
Ege: I don't think I can update the slides in time with the suggestions
Kaz: we can use architecture call and td call
… we could clarify methods and goals
Ege: is somebody willing to help ?
Kaz: I not asking you directly
Ege: lot of stuff to do
Kaz: we can share the workload between each other
Kaz: maybe it is better to not use slides
… but better the report itself
… we can consolidate existing text
Ege: I don't have really time to finish up
Kaz: not asking to refactor the whole google slideset
… but rather how to share the editorial work
Kaz: what if people cannot work on the document?
Ege: everbody should do what he can
[adjourned]