Meeting minutes
Housekeeping
McCool: last week we merged a PR on architecture, still have hazard use case on deck
Kaz: we should however discuss policy, but did not last week because Michael Lagally was not available
Lagally: appreciate it
McCool: think however we should "drain the queue", then close it while we discuss policy
Lagally: would prefer to defer and focus on policy
Lagally: let's look at the hazard PR at the end of the call
Policy
Lagally: let's review the current policy; we accept use case proposals widely, review as a group, then merge in to the document if appropriate
… have some templates (HTML and MD) with a small high-level requirements section
… then we did some editorial work to organize them, and in some cases asked contributors to consolidate and refine
McCool: think we need to define the overall process, and then the inputs, outputs, and contributors to each step
… for example, gathering use cases, extracting requirements, and prioritization and recommendations for work items
McCool: in summary, we focus on gathering inputs but not generating outputs
Ege: agree, we don't focus enough on outcomes and work items we should work on
Ege: focus of use case should be not to just gather iot use cases, but identify areas in which wot would be useful and have a business benefit
Lagally: agree, need phased approach, maybe different people involved
Kaz: most important part is identifying needs from industry
… although may have needs from different areas
… but should do requirements and gap analysis separately
Kaz: on the other hand, business benefit may be hard to define and may be too narrow
McCool: maybe we should consider "wide benefit", e.g. number of stakeholders impacted
Lagally: if we look retrospectively, see things that have been in the document for a while
… consider for example geolocation
Lagally: for example, we have known about geolocation for a while, but it was not dealt with
McCool: to be fair, we know about geolocation, but we have not done enough analysis of others
Ege: regarding geolocation, I don't really understand the requirements...
McCool: there are some documents on geolocation, but the analysis is not merged into the main document, so it's hard to find
Lagally: do we want requirements in a separate document or update this one?
McCool: personally think easier to have it all in one document, links etc. are easier
Kaz: agree requirements should be described separately, but there are relationships that need to be organized
<Mizushima> +1 kaz
McCool: current requirements lack links back to use cases
Lagally: these are horizontal and are quite old
McCool: perhaps we should have a new section for "use-case-driven requirements" and put the current set in a "broad" requirements section
McCool: also we should link the proposed work items back into use cases
McCool: and some of the work items were in fact driven by the coverage analysis
Ege: I did also analyse the coverage analysis but was only able to extract three actionable items
… one problem is lack of technical depth
… but for example, time series
McCool: so we need to do more work to extract technical requirements?
Ege: but in some cases we need to talk to the people who originally proposed a use case
… my opinion is that each use case must include *technical requirements*
… don't think current system is working well
Lagally: think it has been working well, have a good collection of use cases
Ege: personally, think success should be measured by successful specs
Lagally: but it has also been useful to gather interest
Kaz: for use cases as a starting point, should consider requirements as list of "pain points"
… what is difficult to do, we have to think about how to solve the problems to cover the requirements
McCool: personally I think use cases are about identifying problems clearly, but we still need to do work to identify solutions
Ege: don't think we should merge new use cases until we draw out the requirements
Lagally: don't however want a long queue of pending requests
Ege: but also bad to have a lot of use cases merged but now can't contact the people who submitted them
… and we also have a problem with redundancy and vagueness
Ege: when I read the use cases, a lot of them also are already satisfied
Lagally: you do have a concrete suggestion to hold off merging until we have requirements; still a little vague as a policy, since use case template does have a requirements section
… and who decides?
Ege: task force lead?
Lagally: consensus is better
Ege: also, spec writers and marketing have different needs
Lagally: think we need to think a bit more, consider the stakeholders, how the use cases will be moved, etc.
… but we need to improve the collaboration between groups
Kaz: agree consensus decision making better
… also, although we already have many use cases, we should also consider updates
… and we may want to consider restructuring
PR 211
Lagally: this is on Hazard Annotation
<luca_barbato> w3c/
<luca_barbato> https://
<luca_barbato> PR 211 - Hazard Annotation/files#diff-de6d415702ffd77dbeb76f19f38fb827983fef1113075d90e005b864b30f0a01R44
<kaz> (merged)
McCool: want to see if accessibility has been addressed; Yes, it has been addressed.
<kaz> [adjourned]