Meeting minutes
Agenda
Sebastian: (shows the agenda)
Minutes Review
<kaz> Jan-31
Sebastian: We reviewed in chairs call, there were no issues
Sebastian: approved
Quick Updates
Wiki updates
McCool: I have archived the main page wiki
W3C in Europe
<kaz> Agenda
Sebastian: I was invited to
W3C in Europe
… there is the agenda available. It was
yesterday
… I had a presentation about WoT
… it was high level
Breakout Sessions
Sebastian: Kaz can you give an update
Kaz: as you know, W3C
organizes in TPAC. We identified that breakouts are very popular.
It would be useful to have them during or before the upcoming AC
review
… they will be online only
Sebastian: should we organize, as WoT WG, a breakout session?
Ege: they are open to all the Members right?
Kaz: yes
Ege: in that case, it would be good to host big topics, like digital twins and get input from others outside of w3c. Or find synergies with other groups, e.g. solid
<kaz> kaz: yeah, please think about any topics including WoT use cases, possible applications, group collaborations, etc.
Sebastian: how should we
organize?
… we can submit until end of february
… we can get inputs from the wg for another week
and then organize
McCool: we can collect them in an issue
<kaz> announcement on the Chairs list (Member-only)
Sebastian: (adds a link to the issue)
<kaz> Issue 1178 - Collecting ideas for the W3C Breakout Day 2024
Meetups
WoT CG
Ege: Feb 15 on
Microscopes
… three more planned
WoT JP CG
Mizushima: we held a smart city event
Kaz: I gave a presentation, similar content to the Nordic CG meeting
Other Events
Sebastian: Ege and Cristiano
will talk about node-wot in a developer conference
… Ege will talk in an HiveMQ event
Lagally: is it online or physical?
Ege: online
Cancellations
<kaz> Cancellations
Sebastian: Chinese new year and holidays in germany. I am not available. Some calls are cancelled
Sebastian: anything but td and marketing are cancelled
Schedule
<kaz> schedule.md
Lagally: is this for all deliverables? Profile has different dates afaik
Sebastian: we should discuss profile separately
Kaz: We need to ask all the TF leads to think about the updated schedule. Regarding the Profile and Architecture, McCool has sent out a call-for-resolution for TF leads message, and we should wrap up that discussion first.
Versioning
Ege: I have prepared a PR and we will discuss this in the tomorrow's td call
McCool: discovery will follow TD but we had similar issues as TM Ontology
<kaz> kaz: we need to have some more discussion tomorrow, and then will bring the status back to the main call in two weeks.
First actionable roadmap for TD
<kaz> PR 1176 - First actionable roadmap
Ege: it is a PR that puts the non UC items into an order
Lagally: we have requirements about geolocation. When can we incorporate them into the TD spec?
McCool: we also have a use case about dynamic TDs or not
Lagally: But where is it in the roadmap
Kaz: this is a task force report, We should have discussed this as part of the TD TF report. For today, it's just that we can discuss proposals on use case handling, etc., when we get input from TD TF based on this work.
McCool: this affects discovery as well, it can be used as a test for the use case process
<Ege> +1 on McCool
TF Reports
Scripting API
Daniel: we will not have a
scripting call next week. One topic was relationship to TD
TF.
… other was about data schema. JR found that some
affordances do not have the type term so it breaks the
algorithm
Sebastian: there is also a semantic api discussion but I will provide a use case
Security/Discovery
<kaz> (suspended)
Marketing
https://
Ege: mastodon is working
very well
… also we have a repository template
proposal
Use Cases
Mizushima: we talked about the
template but there are issues
… we need to discuss those issues
Mizushima: we will talk about them in two weeks
https://
Ege: in td, we discussed
the overall process of use cases etc.
… also finished the registry analysis, learned a
lot as TF
… and labeled 200 out of 250 issues whether there
is a use case potential
Profile
<kaz> Call for Task Leads
McCool: Ben has expressed but cannot dedicate enough time while we have another volunteer, Luca.
<McCool_> proposal: Restart the Profiles TF with Luca Barbato as TF Lead.
<McCool_> proposal: Restart the Profiles TF immediately with Luca Barbato as TF Lead.
<sebastian> +1
<mlagally> +1
<McCool_> proposal: Restart the Profiles TF immediately with Luca Barbato as TF Lead.
RESOLUTION: Restart the Profiles TF immediately with Luca Barbato as TF Lead.
ACTION: kaz to work with Luca to create a doodle poll
IG Charter Discussion
Koster: small number of
things to clean up
… Ege is not here, may want to discuss
relationships.md and how it relates
PR #145
wot-charter-drafts PR 145 - Fixes to charter draft
McCool: is the Marketing TF
part of the IG or the WG?
… wording change makes it a little
unclear
Koster: similar issue for Use Case TF
McCool: suggest we define this somewhere, maybe at the start of the scope section?
Kaz: suggest "through the Marketing Task Force" is too much detail for the summary box anyway
McCool: agree, that is simpler
Koster: ok, will implement
that change
… (updates PR as suggested)
<kaz> HTML Preview
Koster: looks like "Marketing Task Force" is mentioned later, "as mentioned in scope"
Koster: so we do need a sentence to define them
Koster: (merges PR)
Koster: let's add that sentence now...
McCool: I propose the sentence "The work on the use cases and marketing is done in the Use Cases Task Force and Marketing Task Force, respectively."
McCool: I propose the sentence "The work on the use cases and management of public appearance will be performed in the Use Cases Task Force and Marketing Task Force, respectively."
Koster: make PR - will merge immediately, highlight for discussion
... wot-charter-drafts PR 146 - Define task forces
PR (merged)
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts PR 144 - fix: minor typos
Koster: this PR just fixes typos
Koster: seems to be a conflict - older version is the correct one (lower case in middle of sentence)
Koster: resolved
Koster: other change is
obvious typo, suggest merging
… (merged)
Other PRs
Koster: agenda had PRs 91 and 92 but they don't seem to be related to the IG charter
Other IG Charter Issue
<kaz> Charter Issues
Koster: three issues left labeled with "IG 2023 Charter"
Issue 128
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts Issue 128 - IG Charter 2023: Update Charter History
Koster: Issue #128, update charter history, still needs to be done
Issue 121 and 122
<kaz> on the other hand, #121 and #122
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts 121 - IG Charter 2023: Update background
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts Issue 122 - IG Charter 2023: Update scope
Koster: but #122 and #121
relate to scope and background; these are now complete
… will close, if someone wants further changes they
can reopen the issue
… (closes issues #121 and #122)
Koster: kaz, were you going to update the charter history?
Kaz: yes, once the draft is ready I can update that section
Other Issues
Koster: figure still needs
to be updated
… and not just a broken link, the figures needs to
be updated
McCool: I think we agreed
to make the bottom box say "Other W3C Groups and WoT CGs"
… the plural in CGs is important
McCool: suggest we create
an issue for this and agree to execute that change for the
draft
… also suggest we distribute an email calling for a
resolution to submit to AC in two weeks.
… since we have no main call next week
Koster: ok, I will do an email, work on that issue
McCool: and I assume kaz will do the charter history
Kaz: we *could* do a resolution by email...
McCool: to be fair, do need a final draft and need to give people at least a week to look at it
Koster: ok, if we can finish the draft today, that will be Feb 14.
Policy Discussion
Koster: let's look at issues and policy
PR 1128
<kaz> PR 1128 - [Policy] Move chair-decision-process.md from "proposals" to "policies"
McCool: regarding the change to Pr #1128, think we should ask via email if there are any objections to merging, give people a week to comment, same as the IG charter
Issue 1171
<kaz> Issue 1171 - [Policy Proposal] Invite Expert Selection Procedure
Koster: let's look at some of the other issues - #1171
McCool: so a few issues here; need to actually be an expert, but also needs to be clear what they are contributing
<kaz> W3C Invited Expert Policy
McCool: start with the W3C
basic policy, refine
… need to also consider we get unsolicited
(self-)nominations
Kaz: personally think the W3C policy itself is clear enough, but some people misunderstand it and send an application from their side without invitation. So we can think about additional procedure about the review for the IE applications.
McCool: I think the "invitation" policy is clear, but we probably need a "nomination" policy
Koster: also many public
entry points that they can contribute, e.g. in the CG
… use cases, tutorials, etc.
… in other cases, maybe they are already
contributing e.g. by building implementations
McCool: unfortunately building an implementation is not enough to motivate contribution to the specs
Koster: need in-kind evidence of contribution
<kaz> [adjourned]