Meeting minutes
Session 1
<wendyreid> date: 2024-01-16
Wendy: we may cancel the AB meeting this week
Ralph: we may wish to discuss a planning committee for the April AC meeting. We could discuss that here
Welcome and intro
<wendyreid> w3c/
Wendy: Welcome to the first AB-led Member meeting of 2024. I don't have much of an agenda today. We could discuss the April AC meeting
… We could discuss the Breakouts Day. This is something many people wanted after we saw how many were proposed for the last TPAC
<Ralph> Call for W3C Breakouts Day 2024 Session Proposals
Wendy: one complaint was there were so many ppl wanted to attend. there were many good ideas. So the Team is hosting one in March
… you can propose topics. there's a shorter informative session and a longer breakout session for discussion or presentation
… There are options and ppl can propose things. Since Team is here are there any questions or feedback, suggestions
… or do ppl want to talk about potential breakouts
PLH: Many thanks to Ian and Francois for organizing that
<DKA> If appropriate I could briefly chat about the Privacy Principles draft coming from the TAG. https://
Florian: quick comments, in addition to this there's an event in Europe organized by Team as well
https://
<Ralph> Re: SAVE THE DATE - “W3C In Europe” virtual Member meeting
Ralph: here's the announcement
… Thanks Florian
DKA: it will be 6 February and it's on my calendar. I'll be there. it will be the Europe event
Florian: wish I could be there but I'll be on the east coast, as well as on vacation…
Ralph: what i raised my hand for. As PLH said thanks to Ian and Francois for the initiative on the Breakouts.
… And Dom for the W3C in Europe Day. this was a topic Naomi proposed for roadshows. we realized travel is complicated. so the W3C Europe event is virtual so maybe we'll get participation from east coast and west coast Americas as well as Asia. that's an advantage of virtual
… Please suggest topics for the Breakouts. if you have one you'd like to lead that's great.
… Also if you have topics you'd like to hear about, let us know those also. those might lead to sessions in Europe as well
… BTW Seth is not here as it's the middle of the night. the BoD is having an in person meeting in Australia this week. Seth sends his regrets
… So let me make another plea for agenda topics both for Breakouts, for the Europe Meeting and the April AC meeting
… any topics you'd like to hear about in those 3 opportunities let's collect topics there to hear about. and figure out where they fit best
… ok PLH since you pressed me. if you'd like to be on the Programm Committee for the April AC please let me know. I welcome people who would like to be on the PC
PLH: I'll send invite for lighting talks too
<wendyreid> ?
Wendy: thanks PLH
Wendy: Dan, since you mentioned it to you want to talk about the privacy principles draft from the TAG
DKA: might be work mentioning to AC here and I'll send mail to AC mailing list. I linked to GH version of PP
… we haven't shuttled to /TR yet. we have at the end of the year, we have been working on it, by TAG TF.
<wendyreid> https://
DKA: includes TAG and others. it's been a separate effort. we had a consensus call about substance. the call was specifically talking about the TAG to state agreement
… w/ the meat of the document. w the idea some editorial work is needed. esp to simplify language
… but we do have consensus now on principles themselves. i want to socialize w AC
… I would like feedback. we've had some rounds of what I'd call horizontal review from outside groups
… we're in final stretch. I'd like to close off this TF
… and let everyone go home. we've been doing this for 2 years. we have meetings one additional hourper week.
… from a work perspective i want to get the work done. I think it is done. I think the intention is to move it through W3C statement track
Florian: answers one question re: statement. great. i see that last date is a few months ago.
DKA: I haven't asked Yves to copy the document to TR
Florian: ok so it's coming
DKA: we need to do it at the revision it's at editors draft which has consensus
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to ask about deadline
Amy: thanks to the TAG for this work
… it's hard and very thoughtful work
… what is your schedule for feedback?
Amy: great work ,many kudos. any deadlines?
DKA: i want to sunset this by summer. I want to move from once a week to bi-weekly
… by that time i'd like it to be in the process of going through the statement process. i don't know what that will look like
… I want to be there w/int the next quarter
Florian: I think this will be first doc to go through statement. there will be some process hiccups
… if you want to be done by summer start early
DKA: I want this to be going through Statement track clearly by that point
… then it will be up to the TAG. we won't have the TF anymore
DKA: I also hope w/in next months in TR that reflects enough consensus to reference this in a meaningful way
… to help drive TAG reviews, how ppl talk about privacy and influence ongoing spec work
… that's the main point. we're already referencing bits of it. we'd like to get more formalized
Wendy: ChrisN was your question answered?
ChrisN: it was about scheduling, when the TAG sent info I was wondering where it was. to echo Amy, thanks for the work you've done. it's important
PLH: speaking of privacy, a few things. yes, Dan to get to Statement it will take some time.
… and it's about Privacy. One other thing is to shamelessly advertise is a Privacy lead
<plh>
PLH: Please feel free to diffuse this into your networks. the end of Jan is the end of the Privacy WG review
<plh>
PLH: we did have a note to remove one deliverable from the charter. But please look at the charter and approve it
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to ask TAG to have a mind to best practices for other works
<Ralph> s/Kuhlewind/Kühlewind/
Amy: a suggestion on the Privacy Principles: a lot of work will go into best practices, tips, etc.
DKA: I had a flash title: "So you want to make a W3C Statement"
DKA: i had a brilliant flash to presenting this on a panel "so you want to make statement"
Amy: please imagine this as a nice friendly process if you can
Wendy: i will look at principles and how people review and send feedback to TAG. also the Privacy WG charter
Wendy: for new joiners, let us know if there are any Breakout topics, AC meeting topics or sessions, Europe Members meeting
… or if there are any other topics. the agenda is little light today
https://
Wendy: we are trying out a new agenda method.
ChrisN: I do notice that I sent an agenda but no one else is submitting things. wondering if we have a way to organize so we do have topics
… i was going to ask how AB was getting on w/ current priorities. maybe an update of each of those
Wendy: that's a great suggestion
… Apologies for putting ppl on the spot. DingWei want to talk about "exploring new horizons"
DingWei: thanks Wendy . we do have some progress on this, specifically thanks to PLH
<tzviya> AB Priorities 2024 https://
DingWei: we do have info on the repo. If you're an AB member please comment w/ your ideas
… we're trying to collect ideas. we'll bring to the AB meeting at the end of this. month.
… i saw some very good topics but not much disagreement on wording
<tzviya> w3c/
DingWei: before the end of the month we'd be happy to have more comments. we really welcome comments
Wendy: Tzviya shared the link the remaining topics. Unless other AB want to comment
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about Vision
Tzviya: ppl might be wondering about Vision, which we were very open about. the last Vision meeting in Nov
… I expressed concern about continuing to work on it. we had discussion in AB on where to go next
… there will be a more official announcement. I will step down as Chair. Chris will step up as Chair and Tantek as Editor
… we feel a lot of proposed changes - often when you work on a spec. there's a "one true way" to do things. w/ tech or wording
… w/ something like this it's opinion. we've been working on best way to word. we've come to some consensus . there're pull requests but we're going around in circles
… we need to come to agreement on a draft. there will be AB publication. we need to discuss whether as Note or Statement.
… I'll still participate but it will be led by ChrisW
ChrisN: i absolutely recognize the difficulties the TF has had. I've seen conversation by Board.
… whether that's different to what's written. that's unclear to me. what i'd prefer to see is that what the Board takes up is grounded in what the TF has done
+1 to Board using what TF worked on
ChrisN: I have less insight into what the Board is doing than the TF
… Ideally all these things are coming from the same body or work.
… Perhaps different mainifestations of it
Tzviya: there's been a lot of discussion about that. one Board said he was speaking as himself not Board
… ChrisW asked this be on the Agenda of the F2F today. Hopefully the board will sort this out.
… we would like an official statement of what the board wants
Florian: Largely the same thing Tzviya said. the AB does not have full clarity of what the Board thinks.
… if we do get that, great. if it's "that's the right type of work we just wish it was done"
… it doesn't make sense to have competing statements for vision. Maybe the Board wants to work on W3C as community vs. org
+1 to only one vision document
Coralie: Thanks Wendy and thanks Tzviya for putting this forward
… a few observations. First, the purpose of the vision document was to put w3c in a position where it could identify the criteria by which decisions can be made in the context of losing its founding director as a key cog in the process
… my understanding is that the Board wants to use some of the content is to put w3c in a favorable position for funders to support our work
… lastly, the comm team is expecting that document to be stable enough to update page which is /mission
<koalie> https://
Coralie: which i haven't updated in over 6 months. taking the most generic points which had consensus in the Editors draft
… this will be mixed. the Comm Team will help the Board come up w/ verbiage for anything that seeks funding
… my slight worry is that when there's leadership change esp Editor level is that everything goes back to the drawing board. i'll leave it at that
Florian: I don't think you need to be worried. the new Chair is the former editor. there should be continuity.
<tzviya> +1 to florian
Florian: it won't be long before this is CR-level. the AB has done its part we're now seeking consensus
Florian: I expect it will be close. to help decision making. yes that was one of the goals.
… the funding question was one goal. w/out prejudice. but stating what we do is one motivation but guiding the decisions, embodying ideas of director
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond to koalie
Florian: the idea of fundraising is re-surfacing not new
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to mention change of tax status in addition to director free
Tzviya: i think the docs the comm team put up are fantastic and require little editing
Amy: The status of W3C changed, not just from director-free, but also to a 501(c)(3) which requires different kinds of funding
… and requires that we show we work for the good of the public
… these are legal requirements
… the reason for funding is not wanting a few extra dollars
Wendy: thanks. Are there any other questions or comment about the vision work
Elena: to add some points on the fundraising aspect. there are 1.48 million 501c3 orgs in the US
… so a key is to stand out. we can do this by being short. the page right now is great. very succinct
… the ppl who put money down are succinct. to say we directly invest in standards interop for eg
… what the $ goes for, like ensuing the web doesn't break. so they feel they are investors in this.
… also to ensure this is aligned w/ what they do. to make sure it's succinct and key words. my 2 cents
Wendy: thank you
… any other questions? Because this was started w/ a request for update on priorities. I will do a quick speed round of remaining. as they've had the most work
… next is Incubation. we'll discuss at F2F. a lot of attention has gone to new horizon which is related
… for inclusion, if anyone has been paying attention to IETF they did a community survey. so i'd like to propose something similar. to see what our community is like
W3C Breakouts Day 2024
Wendy: the IETF one is interesting. 3Is will be discussed at F2F. we've worked on pulling together documents
… on related work. for Improving community. we have a done a few things. one was the new agenda process to solicit more member feedback for community meetings
… maybe AC moderation and facilitation. some additional improvements to work mode
… some discussion of additional tooling to improve work mode like automated transcription
Privacy Principles draft
I/Wendy: Dan, since you mentioned it/subtopic: Privacy Principles draft
Wendy: also there's a new revision of the CoC. we wrapped up feedback. we'll put out a vote on the CoC
… in the next week or so that will updated this year depending on how the votes goes
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to mention ombuds
Tzviya: just to mention that this isn't the AB but adjacent. in PWE we've been working on revising the ombuds program
… we have mapped out the process for both ombuds persons that are not the W3C leadership
… which is not how we should be. also a set of mediators. we've documented the difference
AB Priorities
I/ChrisN: I do notice that I sent an agenda/subtopic: AB Priorities
Tzviya: and Wendy and i need to meet w/ Seth for next steps. we are nearly finalized w/ budget etc. some will be paid members of the community
… see if you are interested. global representation. ombuds are internal. hopefully wendy and I will tell you how that works
… and how to implement
I wonder if we can nominate ppl for ombuds
Florian: an ongoing work items is process. we did implement director-free. but we might not have managed to remove Director from all documents. for decisions that still mention him let us know. we know PP
… mentions him. MoU w/ WHATWG still does.
… if Team or whomever is running into mentions of TBL. there are not just historical but active decision making which involve TBL send it to AB
<Zakim> koalie, you wanted to react to florian
Coralie: hopefully the AB will come to Comm for fixing the documents
Wendy: always
Wendy: any other questions on priorities?
DKA: I really just wanted to express support for CoC. the revisions when i reviewed it. the latest revisions are great. esp about desired and acceptable behavior
… the issue will be how do we ensure good enforcement
… i would encourage us all to think about this. Tzviya I guess this is connected to revising ombuds
… but i still feel there's a need to have a culture of enforcement around the CoC w/ in W3C
… not just the mechanics. but that we're all living and breathing it. something that impacts our lives
I think that point is great re: community aspect
Wendy: That's great. we have been working on a document that does a better job describing the document. eg: conflict resolution or incident resolution
… ti spreads out responsibility from not just ombuds or facilitators. to chairs or those in leadership positoins.
… who can intervene in a meeting. or when someone says something harsh. you don't need to take to ombuds. just say "hey that wasn't really nice" before it gets to "that's a CoC violation"
… ppl get worried about CoC being used as a weapon. we need an environment where this is safe. a healthy environment
DKA: we shouldn't feel CoC is a nuclear option. i've used CoC as TAG chair on issues list when things get out of hand
… "hey, we're operating under a CoC". that tends to have a good impact. not just part of our process. but remind behaviors
<AramZS> +1 to that.
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to ask about training
Wendy: I've seen this used by chairs
Amy: I've seen reminders on mailing lists have great result
… sessions on how to handle conflict would be useful; I'd happily attend
Wendy: much of that is in "running better meetings" but it can be put into mini sessions. this could be a potential topic on conflict escalation
<koalie> Running better meetings
Wendy: I am planning, the "running better meetings" is a video. i ran a live session last year. i'm thinking to do more in the spring
<koalie> Running better meetings (part 2)
Wendy: a lot ppl were very busy. I'll do a few more this year. i'd be happy to do one at the AC meeting or whenever ppl want to do it
+1 great idea to run one at the aC
Wendy: we are coming to the top of the hours. last call for any questions or comments
Coralie: Wendy perhaps you might want to consider doing one of the runs of the "running better meetings' at the breakout day
… perhaps not at the AC.
… I have a feeling it's better suited at Breakouts than AC but could be both
Wendy: or both, yeah
… It's good for anyone who is in a position to run a meeting or a leadership position
… it has more content than it's name. I can put in a proposal for the Breakouts for sure
… we'll be meeting again for the afternoon session at 16:00 ET
<koalie> https://
DKA: 21:00 UTC
Wendy: we may see some of you later. have a wonderful rest of your day
… i'll send out links to populate. thank you
the Europe Member event
<amy> s/decline?/deadline?
<amy> s/this. month. /this month.
<plh> if you're responding to the privacy working group charter review, see also w3cping/
Session 2 - 2100 UTC
April AC meeting topics
Tess: talking about the TAG appointed seats
… unlike previous elections, both of the appointees ran for election and were elected
… I'd like to talk about the extent to which the appointed seats are a smoothing function
… in which case why not do the same for the AB?
… the Board of Directors has appointed seats to use as a smoothing function
… but the Board makes its own appointments
… there's an odd number of appointed seats on the TAG so each cycle there's a different number
… I think some standardization across the three bodies could be considered
… this could be an interesting topic to hear from the AC, particularly hearing any experience from other organizations
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to ask Tess to clarify, I think appointments come from TBL?
Amy: the TAG appointees were a residual from the Days of Tim
Tess: yes; and Tim seemed to have valued institutional continuity in his appointments
Amy: part of making our processes better is discussing what else might change
Chris: the TAG appointments were originally for diversity of skill set
… in general it was used for that until it became solely for institutional continuity
… that may not have been the best use
… the change to Process may have been an over-reaction to prevent that use
… there's an issue in the AB repo about whether to have term limits
… appointments on the AB might be useful but it's less clear if those would be used for diversity of skills
… the TAG needs people who understand specific areas
… the Board appointments were an artifact of wanting balance and having an odd number of members
Tess: in general, as Amy was saying, Director-Free was a comprehensive look at replacing TimBL everywhere
… some things required a lot of thought; e.g. the W3C Council process
+1 to tweaking the way we do things as needed every year
<cwilso> +1
Tess: I'm hoping that now that we have this Director-free Process we'll continue to tweak it yearly
… it's an opportunity to see what works and what doesn't
… don't be afraid to tweak things
… appointed seats are just one example; there are others
… the Council process is one of the more complicated parts but I think that's justified; Formal Objections are serious
+1 to councils being difficult but important
Tess: people who file FOs should not be made to feel unheard
Alan: for the appointed TAG seats, does the elected TAG have input?
Tess: yes
Chris: and the AB and TAG have to ratify the Team's choice
Tess: and the TAG chooses its own chairs
Chris: that's another interesting difference
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to comment on intentionality in appointments/nomcom
Chris: the TAG chairs are chosen solely by the TAG and only from the TAG participants
… one of the AB chairs can be anyone as long as the AB agrees
… one of the things that was being discussed in the Board term discussion was the idea of a nominating committee
I wonder if part of the differences from AB and TAG appointments, chairs etc. come from TAG being associated closely w/ Director and AB being associated for quite a while w/ CEO
Chris: we've gone back and forth in election discussions in the AB on using official nominating committees
… we changed all the processes to make nominations known at the time they were nominated
… the way our elections work, there's no good way to recommend a slate to
… STV doesn't support slates
… it's a difference in representation
… one of my concerns is that we don't have a smoothing function elsewhere
Tess: you mentioned disappointment that the Board hasn't yet made its second appointment
… I could imagine that's something you might want to wait on
I appreciate Tess' mention of work load. as that is certainly increasing in TAG w/ councils etc. which further shows why ability to keep adjusting is important
Tess: I'd be inclined to wait a bit longer
… and it's hard to find people
… who are willing
… with regard to the TAG appointments, with my AC hat I think it would be a shame to regularly use the appointments to appoint people who ran for election and lost
… but with my TAG hat I have a different preference
… I'm caught in the middle
PLH: be aware that there is a pull request on the Privacy WG charter
<plh>
PLH: I expect that to resolve the Apple FO
Alan: but it would be nice to have a way to add those back without recharting
PLH: there's no shortcut to AC review
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to request PLH give a charter status overview
Charter updates
PLH: we have threads open on the SVG WG closure
… one comment said it was a shame to close this WG without a plan to maintain the SVG spec
<plh> w3c/
PLH: unless there is something new that comes up in the Automotive WG we intend to let its charter run out in April
… the industry is relatively young in making software
… I met earlier today with the community proposing a Federated Identity WG
<plh> w3c/
PLH: a new charter draft exists ^^
… I'm hoping a proposed charter will go to the AC in a couple of weeks
… WebApps Security WG charter also needs to progress
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to ask how federated identity links w/ verifiable credentials
Amy: is the federated identity work related to verifiable credentials and DID?
PLH: no
… they don't need credentials
… that's what they say
… still looking for willing chairs
reminder for PLH to ask for Program Committee
Tess: for the April AC meeting, I hope to hear recommendations for good okonomiyaki
… Hiroshima is known for it
PLH: we're looking for volunteers for the program committee for the April AC meeting
Tess: one of the ideas for the AC meeting is to have the AB, Board, and TAG all meet that week as "Governance Week"
… the TAG might discuss next week whether to meet in Hiroshima
… it's not unreasonable to expect elected bodies to stand in front of those who elected them and report their progress
… we get this to some extent at TPAC but everyone is very busy at TPAC
Chris: we tried to float this last year and the TAG had already planned their meetings
Tess: personally I think the TAG should meet that week in Hiroshima
… though I was planning to take some vacation then
Andrew: I look forward to coming to more of these meetings and going to Hiroshima
PLH: we're having an Intro Session for new AC Reps on March 21
6 February 2024 at 10:00-12:00 CET
12 March 13:00–15:00
CET
8 April 2024, 00:00 – 9 April 202
<plh>
Session 3 - 0300 UTC, 17-Jan
Wendy: welcome to the last round of the first 2024 Member meeting!
<kaz> basic agenda
<kaz> AC 2024
Call for Breakouts Day 2024 Session Proposals
Wendy: this morning we talked a little about proposed topics for the April AC meeting, as well as the emails announcing the March 12th breakout day and the W3C Europe meeting.
… discussed AB priorities and TAG appointees.
MikeSmith: any special topics for the AC meeting?
Wendy: Not really. We talked about having the meeting facilitation training at the AC meeting.
MikeSmith: unfortunately the AC meeting is the first day of elementary school for my daughter, so I won't be able to go. For a lot of people in Japan, if they have kids, that may be a problematic week.
… will probably affect some people being able to go. (Start of school in Japan is in April.)
Wendy: always difficult to schedule around Easter, Passover, etc.
MikeSmith: also trying to get good rates.
Igarashi: probably I will be in Hiroshima. I wonder if the W3C staff asked the W3C Japan staff?
MikeSmith: just a very busy time of year, yes.
… next time we should avoid early April for Japan.
+1
Mizushima: I'm available, and will join
Igarashi: good thing is it is cherry blossom season!
MikeSmith: Hiroshima is quite a pretty town
I'm just happy we don't schedule TPAC over Halloween every year anymore. :P
Igarashi: About the AC meeting: I heard from some of the Japanese members that some of them can only attend two days
… is there any related event alongside the AC meeting?
MikeSmith: I don't know that there's anything planned yet...
<kaz> AC 2024 Event page
Kaz: The agenda and potential social events are still open. I think that's one of the reasons to have this call and we'd like to hear from Members about ideas for agenda topics, possible social events, etc. :)
Igarashi: perhaps a social outing in Hiroshima?
<igarashi> https://
<igarashi> miyajima
cwilso: The agenda for the AC meeting hasn't been planned, so if there's ideas for social outings or local meetings, we can suggest those
wendyreid: definitely on the AB's agenda
Igarashi: perhaps we can have Japanese tech presentation?
Kaz: definitely, if we can get that suggestion into the Team
<igarashi> How about inviting a guest speaker who talks about Japanese situation
+1
WendyReid: I don't know if there's been a Japanese community meeting this year; could that community propose a topic for the AC?
Igarashi: we have Japanese meetings about twice a year
… I don't know how many members will be there in Hiroshima
… we could invite a famous IT person or well-known person in the web community
+1
<kaz> W3C in Europe Member Meeting (Calendar)
Igarashi: the W3C in Europe meeting held in February - it's a good kind of a direction, to have such local events.
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to cite w3c/
cwilso: Yes we have raised it with the team, one challenge is that we don't have as strong a community in the US
… despite there being a lot of members in Americas, Asia and EU have stronger partners with Keio, Beihang, ERCIM
… making sure reports on the member meetings get out to everyone helps
… companies with members across the globe, people based in Europe can engage with the community
… like you mentioned before, igarashi, getting guest speakers will help build
MikeSmith: We have minutes for the Japan member meetings, but they might be in Japanese
cwilso: I'm not sure where to find them, but there was an excellent summary done, and we can always translate
MikeSmith: a lot of the work, and a lot of people attending the meetings, are in specific areas like Smart Cities, WebofThings, etc...
MikeSmith: on the breakouts: DBaron posted on Slack that the page on w3.org is Team-only; I think something went awry in the publishing
<MikeSmith> w3c/
MikeSmith: The GH page is correct and live
… I posted to the WHATWG matrix channel about it
<MikeSmith> https://
Igarashi: about local activity, W3C should consider not only local members but the outreach outside W3C. Ac meeting, TPAC, etc., could be used for such local outreach
MikeSmith: there's a big group active in Japan called HTML5JP. Atsushi Shimono has been involved in it for some time.
Keio also has a big event every year where all the student and instructor labs have booths, talk about their work, etc... we have members there to present on stuff they're doing at W3C.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to igarashi
<igarashi> Let's talk about outreach in general.
Kaz: I'm getting a bit confused. If we want to change the topic and talk about potential outreach, let's change the topic explicitly and then concentrate on potential outreach during the member meeting; then talk about breakout session, then AC meeting. On potential outreach event: that sounds nice, W3C can thing about that, and additional events like a workshop.
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to reply to Mike
WendyReid: like the Developer Meetup at TPAC
cwilso: I just wanted to add on to something Mike said, you were talking about the Japanese member meetings
… where the participants were in specific areas like Web of Things, Media, etc
… we don't hear enough about that in the broader W3C
… not a lot about smart cities
… it's not something driven in the US
… understanding how it fits into the broader web, the W3C narrative, is missing
Kaz: these days, we don't really take concrete minutes from the Japanese member meetings, because it is somewhat casual information exchange.
… we have presentations, but then open participatory discussion
Igarashi: I wanted to talk about outreach
… I wonder how W3C Japan shares activity like Web of Things to new members?
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to igarashi
kaz: good question. That's why I asked to create dedicated community groups, for Japanese community.
<igarashi> Is it a Japanese comminity about Web of Things?
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to comment about interactions with Japanese government ministries, and how that relates to some of our member priorities and to comment about doing more outreach co-located with IETF events and to also mention local seminars we organize (and to note that we are always looking for new speakers for those — who can be outside Japan, presenting remotely)
MikeSmith: we, W3C Japan, regularly have sessions that we call "W3C Japan Mini Member Meetings", someone outside or on the Team does a technical presentation.
<igarashi> Is the seminar open to non-members?
<igarashi> I gess "we" is W3c Japan
MikeSmith: a different type of outreach
Igarashi: one of the problems may be that we can't hold huge events
… we might target some particular community or industry
… Kaz' idea about creating WoT community group is good
… I have a question for Mizushima-san: is there any issue that you would like to create a community group for?
Mizushima-san: many people don't know the technology, so we must promote the many opinions from stakeholders.
Kaz: I wanted to mention several topics quickly - Mizushima-san is concerned about deployment and outreach - that's why we created separate TFs within the WoT-JP CG, i.e., outreach, deployment, use case and translation. Also Mizushima-san has just volunteered to become the TF lead for WoT Use Cases TF of the WoT IG so that he himself can become the bridge for outreach and deployment. That kind of active participation from the Membership should be one of the keys :)
<MikeSmith> outreach idea: try to organize more outreach efforts to sync up with IETF face-to-face events https://
WendyReid: thanks all, let's wrap up. Thanks everyone!
<MikeSmith> thanks much wendyreid for chairing in this timezone especially and cwilso for scribing