Meeting minutes
housekeeping
Lagally: let's review minutes from April 4 and 11
Kaz: I think we already reviewed April 4
Lagally: I see, ok, no agenda
… so let's just look at April 11
<kaz> Apr-11
Lagally: seems to be some formatting issues that need to be corrected
Kaz: formatting issues have been corrected
Lagally: also a deletion that was not applied
Kaz: fixed
Lagally: approve?
… no objections, will publish
schedule
Lagally: given that people are busy with testing, etc. should we change the schedule
McCool: need to prioritize PR critical paths, think policies and work items should be discussed after that, in late May
Kaz: we also need to consider organization of documents, including use cases. That work should be done in parallel with the wrapping up for the 1.1 specs. So we should clarify our timeline for both directions, 2.0 prep and 1.1 wrap-up in our schedule.
Lagally: coming to the question here about use cases, makes sense to suspend for now, and take work up with new charter
McCool: so we stop for now, define the new policies, and then proceed in the new charter under whatever new policies we decide
<Mizushima> +1 kaz
Kaz: suspending use case collection and document collection is fine, but when do we start and stop?
McCool: how about we meet a month from now?
Lagally: also, want to say due to a management change won't be able to contribute as editor for TFs
… so need to wrap up things
McCool: we are also losing other people, so generally have to reorg
Kaz: resources always limited, will have to decide what we can do based on that
Lagally: oracle is not pulling out of WoT, however
McCool: ok, so we should pause the UC calls and update the readme to say contibutions are paused while we adjust policies
Kaz: again, just saying "suspending the TF" is vague, because we need to continue the discussion on our policy and procedure. Having initial discussion during the WoT main call is also fine, but that kind of plan should be also clarified there.
<Mizushima> +1 kaz
McCool: think we need to define overall process first, before we discuss internal details of UC TF procedures
Lagally: can look at other standards groups for requirements process, eg. DVB consortium has a good process
… there is a commercial group that gathers commercial requirements, then these are approved by steering board (members from other TFs).
McCool: we definitely need a process that lets us prioritize for industry adoption
Lagally: right
Kaz: can look at other SDOs, also IETF, ISO, etc; however, most important part is our own intentions
Kaz: we should clarify as WG the basic policies about what kinds of ideas to be obtained from what kind of people and how
… in my mind can be quite simple
McCool: I think we are clear on the goal: wide industry adoption
… but I'm not convinced it's clear how to get there
Lagally: would not necessarily survey all other SDOs, just giving an example
Lagally: we have to avoid just adding a bunch of features without motivation
ege: what do the other W3C groups do
Lagally: my understanding is that groups are self-organizing
Kaz: have been working as a team contact for a long time and for many groups
… all those groups have started with use cases and as part of liaisons with external SDOs
… but relationships with external orgs is getting more and more complicated
… what should be clarified is something like what ML is showing (@@link)
<mlagally> w3c/
McCool: do think we need to work harder on gathering stakeholders and contributions
Lagally: do want to say that UC document is a good baseline for future work
McCool: want to say we appreciate your contributions and hope that you next project is interesting!
Kaz: myself also; but if not working on use cases, need to think about policy, procedure and strategy for the next Charter period.
McCool: that is my intention
<kaz> [adjourned]