– DRAFT –
WoT Use Cases

Minutes

<kaz> Apr-4

Lagally: minor clarification on the last line
… (consensus + commit)

Policy

<mlagally> https://www.w3.org/TR/wot-usecases/

Lagally: Terminology and Stakeholder sections are set in stone

Lagally: It is unrealistic to ask past contributors to reword their sections of the document

Lagally: Two options: one is to leave the option in places as-is
… the other is to refine the requirements and split in separate documents
… possibly to have a formal presentation of requirements from the use-case

Kaz: This discussion is different from the policy itself, this is more about how to deal with the past and new use-case

Lagally: I would first focus on producing requirements from use-cases since we have many use-cases yet to be processed

Kaz: The document was generated from the past charter, we should think about what to do for the next charter period
… we should focus on the use-cases and requirements for WoT 2.0
… We should clarify the link between the group of use-cases and the specification versions
… the past use-cases should be imported and converted as needed
… and possibly select a subset of the past use-cases

<Mizushima> +1 kaz

Lagally: To be clear we should select use-cases that we can not forward to the next charter period

Kaz: We can import important ones and refer to the past document for those that are not to be developed further

Lagally: We should split the conversation one topic is use-cases and the other is requirements

Ege: Seems to me that there are multiple discussions ongoing
… one topic is decide how we are going to process the requirements
… either bind them to the charter or make it a "live" list

Lagally: we have this document as working base, I would not respin the whole document

Luca: extracting requirements from what are written here
… vs
… how to get new use cases/requirements
… Do we care about producing requirements from the existing use cases?
… or would think about new use cases and requirements from new comers?
… not sure which should come first

Lagally: yeah, is anyone planning to make contribution for new use cases?

Lagally: Question to the stakeholders: do you plan to contribute new use-cases in the next 3 months?

Ege: Mine can wait

Lagally: So far we do not have a strong formalism and I'd keep the door open for contributions

Lagally: we should come up with a shortlist of requirements and extract formal requirements from them
… the document already helped in shaping the past charter

Kaz: We should pause accepting use-cases for a while and think on how we handle and process use-cases and then unpause the use-cases
… the suspension should be 1 month
… we should not extend the current document with the new use-cases until we complete the policy discussion

Lagally: We freeze until we set the process and procedures

Kaz: I'd consider "freeze" strong, maybe better to say "suspension"

Ege: How to signal we not accept contribution for the time being

Lagally: We pause merging

Lagally: We can use the reflector to message

<Ege> +1 to luca proposal

Luca: We can use github pull-request template to put a notice

Kaz: We can also respond to new pull request to warn about the delay

Lagally: (updates the README.md accordingly)

<mlagally> proposal: At the moment the Use Cases TF is defining the policy for the next WG charter, potential contributors are asked not to create pull requests with new contributions until the next charter period begins.

Kaz: they can still create proposals but they will have to wait a bit

Mizushima: We should first think about which features we want to develop in the new charter and then select the use-cases

Kaz: I think Mizushima-san's point was simply that we should clarify which are the categories of use-cases that are important for the WG based on the new WG Charter.

RESOLUTION: At the moment the Use Cases TF is defining the policy for the next WG charter, potential contributors are asked not to create pull requests with new contributions until the next charter period begins.

Lagally: consensus on the resolution?

Lagally: We can refine the coverage-gap.md

Ege: we can refine the coverage-gap later, we can spend the current month to decide the policy first

Lagally: we have a process: people use the template, people use it to propose a use-case, what to improve from the current process?

Lagally: Let's first create a document and refine it during the month

<mlagally> https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/blob/main/USE-CASES/use-case-contribution-policy.md

Lagally: let continue next week with the goal to have a draft

Kaz: we can start with our current simple policy
… and let's have further discussion next week

Kaz: github is not a well suited platform for policy discussion

[adjourned]