15:01:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #lws
15:01:57 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/11/11-lws-irc
15:01:57 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:01:58 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), acoburn
15:02:03 <acoburn> meeting: Linked Web Storage
15:02:15 <hadrian> hadrian has joined #lws
15:02:31 <cpn> cpn has joined #lws
15:02:43 <eBremer> present+
15:02:46 <hadrian> present+
15:02:47 <jacoscaz> present+
15:02:53 <acoburn> present+
15:02:55 <cpn> present+
15:03:06 <acoburn> scribenick: acoburn
15:03:11 <ryey> ryey has joined #lws
15:03:17 <acoburn> chair: laurens
15:03:36 <acoburn> agenda?
15:04:15 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Linked Web Storage WG -- 2024-11-11 agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20241111T100000/
15:04:33 <TallTed> present+
15:04:33 <acoburn> topic: Approval of meeting minutes
15:04:49 <acoburn> laurens: Lazy consensus for meeting minutes approval
15:05:27 <acoburn> ... if there is no objection to the minutes, the goal is that minutes would be approved automatically
15:05:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/11-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:06:01 <acoburn> jacoscaz: I approve this idea
15:06:14 <acoburn> hadrian: I second that
15:06:26 <acoburn> laurens: do we need a formal proposal?
15:07:16 <acoburn> laurens: PROPOSAL if there are no objections to meeting minutes, they auto-approve after seven days
15:07:31 <laurens> +1
15:07:34 <hadrian> +1
15:07:35 <acoburn> +1
15:07:36 <jacoscaz> +1
15:07:37 <cpn> +1
15:07:39 <ryey> +1
15:07:39 <eBremer> +1
15:07:43 <TallTed> +1
15:08:01 <ericP> ericP has joined #lws
15:08:07 <ericP> present+
15:08:08 <ericP> +1
15:08:11 <acoburn> RESOLVED: if there are no objections to meeting minutes, they auto-approve after seven days
15:08:11 <csarven> present+
15:08:25 <csarven> ack+
15:08:29 <acoburn> topic: Pending Action Items
15:09:04 <jucanbe> jucanbe has joined #lws
15:09:27 <ryey> present+
15:09:27 <acoburn> laurens: Jacopo sent out email asking for input on alternative times
15:09:41 <laurens> present+
15:09:55 <acoburn> -> https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/wiki/Scribe-list Scribe list
15:10:27 <laurens> acoburn: I've created a scribe list from the previously active members in the WG meetings
15:10:30 <jucanbe> present+
15:11:05 <laurens> acoburn: I've put names of all members in there, except the members from Korea who haven't attended yet
15:11:33 <laurens> acoburn: People uncomfortable with scribing or not attending the meetings regularly can remove themselves from the scribe list.
15:11:42 <laurens> acoburn: This is how we'll manage the scribe list for now.
15:12:37 <laurens> acoburn: The second item on my to-do list, once PR pr#5 has merged, I will contact people who have already submitted their issues to reformat to the new template
15:12:38 <gb> Issue 5 not found
15:12:55 <hadrian> https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/pull/5
15:12:55 <gb> https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/pull/5 -> Pull Request 5 feat: add a use cases template for github issues (by laurensdeb)
15:13:23 <acoburn> Topic: Status of the use cases document
15:13:46 <acoburn> hadiran: use cases template is not merged yet
15:14:08 <acoburn> ... realized there are some issues that could be discussed in this meeting
15:14:32 <acoburn> ... one issue: do we have a preference for review-then-commit or commit-then-review
15:14:55 <acoburn> ... another significant issue is that there is a difference between use cases and user stories
15:15:08 <acoburn> ... user stories focus more on the value provided to users
15:15:19 <acoburn> ... use cases focus on how users interact with system
15:15:28 <acoburn> ... personally, I prefer both
15:15:52 <acoburn> ... assume the template will change over the upcoming months, would like to introduce a version number for the format
15:16:02 <laurens> q+
15:16:15 <ericP> q+ to say that before review for first publication, i'm happy with the editor having the simplest workflow
15:16:24 <acoburn> ... why would the template be in the github location and not elsewhere
15:16:44 <acoburn> ... after the meeting today will merge the PR
15:16:57 <ericP> q?
15:17:00 <acoburn> ack laurens
15:17:02 <ericP> ack next
15:17:04 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that before review for first publication, i'm happy with the editor having the simplest workflow
15:17:23 <acoburn> laurens: commit-then-review works for me. Whatever works best for the editors
15:17:48 <acoburn> ... the location of the template is located where it is because it allows us to use GH issues
15:18:16 <acoburn> ... we may need to review GH branch protections
15:18:57 <acoburn> ... preference for use cases, but they are equally relevant
15:19:07 <acoburn> ... it would be good to keep them separate
15:19:10 <hadrian> q+
15:19:57 <acoburn> ericP: good to have the editor commit directly to the repository
15:20:15 <acoburn> ... in terms of user stories vs. use cases is the distinction in terms of technical detail?
15:20:37 <ericP> ack next
15:21:12 <acoburn> hadrian: first, replying to laurens, if we keep both use cases and user stories we need to keep them distinct
15:21:45 <acoburn> ... user stories are more general; use cases are more structured
15:22:06 <acoburn> ... use cases represent interactions with the system and have a closer connection to a protocol
15:22:17 <acoburn> ... user stories capture what a user expects from the system
15:22:35 <ericP> q+ to say that a pattern i've appreciated in the past is when the UC&R has a short paragraph with a user story, then a more detailed example including interactions (which are later coded for requirements)
15:22:48 <csarven> q+
15:23:07 <acoburn> ... example user story: "as an actor, I would expect ... in order to achieve ..."
15:23:12 <ericP> ack next
15:23:19 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that a pattern i've appreciated in the past is when the UC&R has a short paragraph with a user story, then a more detailed example including interactions
15:23:19 <Zakim> ... (which are later coded for requirements)
15:23:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/11-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:23:48 <acoburn> ericP: a pattern I've seen in the past is a paragraph with the high level user story
15:23:58 <jacoscaz> q+ to mention evolving use cases after discussing user stories
15:24:06 <acoburn> ... then, a more detailed use case follows
15:24:16 <ericP> ack next
15:24:45 <acoburn> csarven: ericP's suggestion makes sense to me
15:24:57 <acoburn> ... group can decide if we need separate docs or not
15:25:18 <acoburn> ... question on the actual proposal re review-then-commit vs. commit-then-review
15:25:34 <acoburn> ... what does a commit entail? Does that mean the use case is accepted?
15:26:23 <acoburn> ... the review-first path (i.e. creating issues) can allow participants to refine proposals before they are committed
15:26:45 <acoburn> ... if the use case is clear enough, then it can be translated into the document
15:26:59 <acoburn> ... it is unclear who has access to commit, we would need to clarify that
15:27:38 <acoburn> hadrian: in general, I agree. When the commits are only editorial commits, I could create a PR like others
15:27:59 <acoburn> ... personal preference is that even editorial commits are submitted as PRs
15:28:16 <acoburn> ... should be no commits that come out of the blue, with at least 24 hrs to review
15:28:47 <acoburn> csarven: does that mean that anyone could raise a PR? rather than open issues?
15:29:22 <acoburn> hadrian: anyone with a use case to contribute will submit a PR. Once some consistency is reached, the editor will merge
15:29:34 <acoburn> ... for editorial commits, those also use PRs
15:30:24 <laurens> q+
15:30:32 <acoburn> csarven: in terms of process, there should be five to ten business days for review
15:31:17 <acoburn> hadrian: once we've reached consensus, there would be one more day for the editorial commit
15:31:28 <acoburn> csarven: how long should the review period be?
15:32:08 <acoburn> ... in Solid there are expected review periods for specific types of changes
15:32:24 <ericP> q+ to propose that before initial review for UC&R publication that we leave everything to the discression of the editor
15:32:34 <jacoscaz> q+ to suggest a lighter approach based on trusting chairs
15:32:44 <acoburn> hadrian: I would err on the side of making progress faster
15:32:53 <TallTed> q+
15:32:56 <acoburn> q?
15:33:22 <csarven> Decision period for changes, e.g.: https://github.com/w3c-cg/solid/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#decisions
15:33:43 <acoburn> jacoscaz: first, in terms of setting review time. I would suggest that we trust the chairs
15:34:20 <acoburn> ... the process would be smoother is the chairs set expectations for the review time for different PRs
15:34:23 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
15:34:24 <laurens> q?
15:34:44 <laurens> ack jacoscaz
15:34:44 <Zakim> jacoscaz, you wanted to mention evolving use cases after discussing user stories and to suggest a lighter approach based on trusting chairs
15:35:18 <acoburn> ... in terms of difference of use cases and user stories, can hadrian confirm
15:35:41 <acoburn> ... it would be good to get feedback on user story before spending time translating that into use cases
15:35:54 <acoburn> q?
15:36:00 <acoburn> ack laurens
15:36:20 <acoburn> laurens: we are trying to collect use cases and user stories
15:36:37 <acoburn> ... will there be a subsequent step where they are groomed and prioritized?
15:36:50 <acoburn> ... this first step is more of a triage step
15:37:18 <acoburn> ... this first step is not necessarily a commitment to take on these use cases
15:37:29 <acoburn> ... I would prefer to have a lighter weight process at this stage
15:37:54 <acoburn> ... later we can look into transforming this into a WG note
15:38:02 <acoburn> ... which would have a longer review period
15:38:13 <acoburn> ... in summary: this stage should be quick and light-weight
15:38:15 <acoburn> q?
15:39:04 <acoburn> hadrian: I don't think it will be purely sequential
15:39:20 <acoburn> ... there will be parallel work, and that is the work of the editor
15:39:37 <acoburn> ... in terms of commitment, that will be based on requirements
15:40:13 <acoburn> laurens: yes, we agree that requirements are where the commitments are
15:40:52 <acoburn> ... agree that this will be an iterative process, but we will need a first draft before getting to the protocol drafting stage
15:41:04 <laurens> q?
15:41:10 <laurens> ack ericP
15:41:10 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose that before initial review for UC&R publication that we leave everything to the discression of the editor
15:41:35 <acoburn> ericP: we are currently in a stage where we need to write as much down on a white board as possible
15:42:06 <acoburn> ... at this stage, we mostly need to know if there is redundancy
15:42:43 <acoburn> ... once we are at the point of publishing a UCR we will review more formally
15:43:10 <acoburn> ... until then, I would like to let the editor decide how the use cases are submitted
15:43:28 <acoburn> q?
15:43:28 <laurens> q?
15:43:34 <laurens> ack TallTed
15:44:09 <acoburn> TallTed: as user stories are being submitted, these are plain-English descriptions (e.g. Jane needs to add contacts to an address book)
15:44:19 <acoburn> ... these don't really need collaborative editing
15:44:45 <acoburn> ... this can easily go into issues, where they can be closed (e.g. duplicate or out-of-scope)
15:45:09 <acoburn> ... once they go into use cases, they will need more collaborative editing
15:45:22 <acoburn> ... at that stage, an issue thread is not very effective
15:45:52 <acoburn> ... once we are at a point of collaborative editing, PRs tend to be easier
15:46:05 <acoburn> ... strongly recommend using PRs (rather than straight commits)
15:46:20 <acoburn> ... providing time for review is important
15:46:45 <acoburn> ... sometimes changing a comma to a semicolon can significantly change the meaning
15:46:57 <acoburn> ... would suggest 3-5 business days
15:47:47 <acoburn> hadrian: I very much agree
15:48:32 <acoburn> laurens: to summarize: a process where individuals will propose user stories/use cases as pull requests with a 3-5 day review period
15:49:15 <acoburn> ... we will then distill those use cases/user stories into requirements, which will form the commitments of the group
15:49:35 <acoburn> ... does csarven feel remarks are addressed?
15:49:51 <acoburn> csarven: yes, I wanted something concrete
15:50:19 <TallTed> q+
15:50:22 <acoburn> laurens: in terms of action items, hadrian will make some changes to the template and then merge
15:50:32 <laurens> ack TallTed
15:51:08 <acoburn> TallTed: it is important to note that standards development take longer than developing software
15:51:32 <acoburn> ... in a short period of time, changes will be more significant
15:51:48 <acoburn> ... others outside of this group will start implementing
15:51:56 <acoburn> ... it will be harder to change things
15:52:50 <acoburn> laurens: agree that the standards development is going to require a more thorough process
15:53:17 <acoburn> ... any other comments related to this topic?
15:53:42 <acoburn> ... next WG meeting will be next Monday, same time
15:53:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/11-lws-minutes.html TallTed
15:54:14 <hadrian> hadrian has left #lws
15:58:31 <acoburn> s/hadiran/hadrian/
15:58:42 <acoburn> RRSAgent, draft minuts
15:58:42 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft minuts', acoburn.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:58:52 <acoburn> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:58:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/11-lws-minutes.html acoburn
16:00:07 <acoburn> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20241111T100000/
16:00:08 <agendabot> acoburn, sorry, I did not recognize any agenda in https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/a19ab7dc-1753-433d-bac5-64e3ad8c0a43/20241111T100000/
16:00:19 <acoburn> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:00:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/11-lws-minutes.html acoburn
16:02:44 <acoburn> zakim, end meeting
16:02:44 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been acoburn, eBremer, cpn, uvdsl, jacoscaz, ericP, hadrian, Grace, csarven, timbl, jeswr, AZ, pchampin, ryey, TallTed, laurens, jucanbe
16:02:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/11/11-lws-minutes.html Zakim
16:02:54 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, acoburn; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:02:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #lws
16:03:32 <acoburn> acoburn has left #lws
20:34:14 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws
20:56:23 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #lws