Meeting minutes
<AZ> where is the scribe rotation list?
<acoburn> Scribe rotation list: https://
Laurens: Lets get started.
Introductions and announcements
Laurens: Introductions
Laurens: Any newcomers?
<csarven> Spilled a tonne of tea on my laptop keyboard. Grumpy with a hair dryer
Laurens:
Laurens: One point of interest: Work on use cases
Laurens: Two points:
Laurens: We want people to engage in async discussions in the Github issues.
Laurens: We only have limited time in the meeting, so get involved.
Laurens: Any comments?
… My suggestion: From now on, time box 15 min in each meeting for any necessary discussions; if none, move on.
csarven: Another point to PA's remark: Make sure to switch as to who is speaking
csarven: +1 to Laurens' suggestion, maybe also add that we may want to consider some time for the proposer to present the use case.
csarven: Then there is more time to review and have question
laurens: +1, lets ask hadrian how he wants to address this
laurens: This was an announcement from my side, any other?
Meetings during the holiday season
laurens: Holiday season is coming up
… people have days off, I think there is no overlap between our meetings between the years... however, how will we deal with the meetings on 23rd and 30th?
pchampin: +1, these two might be problematic
kaefer3000: what about the 6th of January? that might also be relevant to spanish-speaking countries...
<bumblefudge> i'm working the 6th
<AZ> can we do a strawpoll to ask who's available on these dates?
laurens: we can do a straw poll
laurens: pchampin is there a straw poll practice at w3c?
pchampin: just type it out
… and people comment
<laurens> STRAWPOLL: Should we keep the WG meeting on December 23rd, 2024
<laurens> -1
<pchampin> -1
<kaefer3000> -1
<uvdsl> -1
<AZ> -0.5 (I'm not available)
<bumblefudge> +0
<eBremer> -1
<acoburn> -1
<ryey> -1
<laurens> STRAWPOLL: Should we keep the WG meeting on December 30th, 2024
<laurens> 0
<AZ> -0.5
<uvdsl> -1
<acoburn> -1
<kaefer3000> -1
<pchampin> -0.5
<balessan> -1
<eBremer> -1
<bumblefudge> -1
laurens: I guess this means we will cancel these meetings, as most are in favor
… for good measure
<laurens> STRAWPOLL: Should we keep the WG meeting on January 6th, 2024
<AZ> +1
<balessan> +1
<pchampin> +1
<laurens> +1
<kaefer3000> -0,5
0
<acoburn> +1
<eBremer> +1
<ryey> 0
<bumblefudge> 0
laurens: most of you in favour, so we keep that meeting.
… pchampin will you cancel the two meetings?
Pending Action Items (1)
pchampin: yes
laurens: let us check in, I do not see any open action items
… I do not think we had any remaining action items, let me double check
… I don't think so.
… then I guess if there are no other action items from meeting participants, then I guess we can jump to the next agenda item
Separate repository for action items (2)
laurens: brought up by csarven on the mailing list, based on the LWS protocol github repo, csarven can you elaborate?
csarven: I ll be brief — it is just that the repo is mainly about the type of assets that we work on
… perhaps we can track documents that we work on seperately
… from the repo
laurens: How do other WG address these kinds of work, how do they track that?
pchampin: these action itmes / works were put there by bots I set up in the repo (?)
… RDF-star has a different repo for issues for actions
… one more repo just for the issues were not a problem there, but in our special case:
… is it really worth of the overhead?
… I agree with csarven that some of the issues are not related to the protocol, that being said, I would consider the LWS repo as the main repo of the WG, so it is ok to have the org issues there as well.
laurens: I think it may not be useful to add yet another repot to the 2 existing
laurens: might be overkill, I do not have strong feelings about creating a new repo
laurens: csarven just left
pchampin: does anyone else have strong opinion?
hadrian: I agree depending how you look at it. If you saw my PR, I put the spec part in a different directory.
… we have too much to handle already
laurens: anyone else?
laurens: So, I don't think we change something in the way how we operate today
… I think we can come back to the issue in the future
… if the need arises
<pchampin> +1 to come back to it in the future if this creates confusion/issues
laurens: hadrian, we can jump back to how we present use cases and discuss them in the meetings
Setting up a recurring timebox slots about UCs
laurens: re-iterating proposal
hadrian: I like the idea of a time-box, but I would like most of the discussion to be async, then maybe in meeting have discussions, editors be prepared
hadrian: to present and answer questions
… there are lots of use cases to be introduced
… I am not yet happy with the formatting
laurens: that would be my proposal as well
<bumblefudge> "discussion at next meeting" :D
laurens: maybe introduce a tag in the repo, flagged for discussion
laurens: can we set this up?
<bumblefudge> some w3c groups i've been in use a "next-meeting" tag on github and run the queue accordingly
laurens: if we then do not see the tags, then we can move through the agenda
acoburn: I agree. But this is also predicated on people in this group to comment and get engaged
… please review the use cases, leave comments / call to action!
pchampin: Just to add: There is actually a practice in other groups, there is a tag in their repos set up
… discussion tag
… and we review a list of issues with this tag in the WG meeting
… the idea is to prio async / offline discussion
… if this gets too much, then we prompt online discussion with this tag
pchampin: which seems to be efficient
laurens: Seconding the request of acoburn: Please get involved! And if we can set up a tag, that would be great, hadrian....
hadrian: +1, I will create a "needs discussion" tag, and use it as necessary
laurens: will create an action item
ACTION: hadrian creates a needs-discussion tag in the w3c/
<gb> I created issue #5
<gb> but I could not add the "action" label.
<gb> That probably means I don't have push permission on w3c/lws-protocol.
pchampin: hadrian, ping me and I will set up the appropriate view in the project
laurens: Okay, then I guess we can close this agenda item
PR review (3)
laurens: there are a couple of open PRs
laurens: there are some by pchampin?
pchampin: first one is from me, this is a technical one: Making sure that everything (issues and sorts) is added to the repo/dashboard (?)
… only needs approval
laurens: given approval just now
… the other one is by hadrian
… I think these are just technical
<laurens> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 20 Prepare to publish first draft. ReSpec tooling and sample content (by hzbarcea)
hadrian: there is not much to discuss ... it is detailled enough. I am unsure when and how you want these PRs merged.
… content is correct but looks ugly
pchampin regarding the uglyness, should not prevent us from merging it.
… There is a service that needs to be activated which includes in each PR a link to a preview - maybe we do not need that actually ....
<pchampin> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 115 add section about 'unstar' mapping (by pchampin)
pchampin: This is just for convenience / I propose to make the configuration, I can take an action for this
… and more to the point: I have not reviewed the PR, I am happy to have a look.
ACTION: pchampin to configure PR-preview for preview/diff on PRs in w3c/
<gb> I created issue #6
<gb> but I could not add the "action" label.
<gb> That probably means I don't have push permission on w3c/lws-protocol.
pchampin: we can merge it. we do not need to wait for the improved css.
hadrian: pchampin, once you approve, I merge it.
… lets get to the process where each PR needs to be approved
… then you know someone looked at it
laurens: I do not see anyone on the queue.
laurens: I think this is the end of the regular agenda. Any other business?
laurens: Then we can close early...
… thank you, and again: Submit your comments on the use cases!
… see you next week!
… goodbye!
<kaefer3000> bye
<hadrian> bye