Meeting minutes
Minutes
Mizushima: (goes through the minutes)
approved
Process
Mizushima: have updated the Process.md based on the discussion during the previous call
… regarding "who to provide input"
… any volunteer proposers are welcome
… not only WoT IG but also WoT WG, WoT CG, WoT-JP CG, ...
… also would like to think about the updated template for the use case description
McCool: there are several GitHub issues like Ege's also
Kaz: would suggest you go through your updated Process proposal based on the previous discussion quickly
Kaz: then go through the GH issues including Ege's
… then talk about possible updated template after that
<McCool> would like to suggest we look at proposal from ege/toumura regarding user stories before we dive into the template, may need multiple templates
<McCool> w3c/
<McCool> w3c/
Process update
Mizushima: have update the description on Process.md based on the discussion during the previous call
… for each phase
Ege: will start with use case template or gap analysis?
Kaz: should start with the updates on use cases, requirements and gap analysis on Process.md at high level first
… then GitHub issues around gap analysis next
Use Case Definition updates
Mizushima: added some description on possible use case template
… based on the discussion during the last call
… also added some description about determining the use cases
… should evaluate if the proposed use case is typical/atomic
… then categorize duplicated use cases into one
McCool: agree post-process is important
… we should also think about how to extract information from the use case description
… we should extract user story as well
<McCool> what I said: felt overall idea of assigning someone to shepherd the process for each use case is good
<McCool> ... but expanding template for use case itself has not been productive in the past
<McCool> ... I think we should focus on process of how to extract requirements from use cases, which tend to be generic
Kaz: agree
… and he's also trying to do so
… so let's ask him to skim the whole story first
Cristiano: do we always create a use case?
… or sometimes some simple story?
McCool: user story should be the starting point
… e.g., I need this capability as a user
… motivating the use case
… captures stakeholder's need
McCool: sometimes could allow to start with missing features
… not only top-down but also bottom-up approach
<Ege> +1 to McCool and Cristiano
<cris_> 1+ plus if we consider that we a good amount of cases of this bottom up approach from already existing issues
Kaz: can understand the need
… but we could start with the top-down flow first
… and then think about bottom-up flow later
… I think Mizushima-san's point is defining what to be clarified during which phase
… regardless the direction
Mizushima: right
… we should be able to handle the bottom-up approach as well
… but anyway we need to clarify stakeholders' needs at the use case phase
… so would start with the use case phase
… and requirements extraction based on the use case descriptions
Ege: would get one clarification
… CG participants can't issue a Pullrequest directly
… how can they provide ideas then?
Mizushima: several methods, I think
… note that it's not really good for them to just submit proposals
… we need further help from them about later phases as well
Kaz: we can accept inputs from non-Member CG participants as well
… UCR document is an IG deliverable and we don't care about the W3C Patent Policy for that
… we already handle inputs from non-Members using the Markdown template
… then include the HTML version into the UCR document later
Mizushima: right
… we need to let them know how to make contributions
… then the WoT IG's Use Cases TF need to evaluate their proposals and then include them into the UCR document as HTML
Kaz: the Process.md should describe that flow as well
Gap analysis
Mizushima: got several issues from Ege
Issue 258 - [Process] Not proceeding to feature definition if there is no gap
McCool: we need a document on the current features
… agree we should not accept proposals which are already covered
… btw, I think user stories are good way to see the gaps also
… see issue 261 also
Issue 261 - Thoughts from the TD Use Case Discussions
Kaz: partly agree but we need to define "gap analysis" a bit more
… use story is important but it's already required for the use case definition phase as the starting point
… my understanding on what Mizushima-san meant by "gap analysis" is evaluating if the requirements extracted from the use cases are already covered by the existing WoT standards or not
… but we still need to clarify what we mean by "gap analysis"
McCool: I meant requirements by "user story" here
Ege: last week some discussion on use cases
… outreach and standardization
<Ege> w3c/
Ege: need some discussion around concrete information
<McCool> time check: 1 past, time to move to main call
McCool: how to proceed?
… can Mizushma-san provide some Issues/PRs for us to give comments?
Kaz: we're still at a brainstorming phase
… so we should rather listen to Mizushima-san's update first
… then give our opinions after that
… when we get a bit more stable proposal, we can start to use GitHub Issues/PRs as usual
[adjourned]