Meeting minutes
Agenda Review, Membership & Announcements
Update from Matthew on documents: https://
<PaulG> matatk: the first three are straight-forward and we can decide what to do with. The others aren't as clear.
<PaulG> ... we need an explainer but it's not usually in the TR space. It has a well-known TAG format which we should compy.
<PaulG> ... consistency in the format helps with sharing it widely
<PaulG> ... we'll use that to help others understand the problems we're trying to solve and considered alternatives (which would never be in a spec)
<PaulG> ... If we can decide which documents we'll proceed with, we can separate out the use cases as we discussed last time.
<PaulG> ... notes from the 11th with Janina confirms this approach of splitting the spec up into smaller chunks that might be better fits.
<PaulG> ... We need to "fix the things you can't do on the web" by restarting the documents with just the problem statements.
<PaulG> ... We'll need to also clean up the "dangling" specs that we're not moving forward with.
PaulG: We also have good content in the wiki that we don't want to lose
… e.g. reasons for delays - we need to show a compelling reason for everyone (noting that our educational partners were adamant that it's core to the required functionality).
<PaulG> PaulG: do we want a second repo, share the current, or something else?
<PaulG> matatk: it's up to us how we want to organize but we can make changes later. We can also, maybe, keep the TR space but rehome the repo for a doc
<PaulG> PaulG: how do we want to handle facilitators?
<PaulG> I'd want the future facilitators to have the organization that makes the most sense for them and what they want to focus on.
<PaulG> matatk: we can seek APA input for the split
<PaulG> ... like a horizontal review based solely on the use cases document
<PaulG> but we can also do the community group approach which may have some advantages to incubate ideas and source new ideas
IrfanA: There may be an existing CG that could help with some of our use cases? We should look.
*group discussion about docs*
1. https://
2. https://
3. https://
4. https://
5. https://
6. https://
PaulG: Could APA chairs discuss in planning about how to coordinate the split, and who'll make decisions on it?
matatk: yes, sure, will continue to bring Janina and Roy in on this.