W3C

– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

03 February 2025

Attendees

Present
acoburn, AZ, csarven, eBremer, ericP, hadrian, ryey, TallTed
Regrets
-
Chair
ericP
Scribe
eBremer

Meeting minutes

ericP: any new people here today?
… no new people. any announcements?

Introductions and announcements

ericP: Hadrian, do you still own action item 13?
… i did it yesterday...Sarven commented on it...

Pending action items https://github.com/w3c/lws-protocol/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction

hadrian: will stay open for a month or two
… but what we know needs to be done is done already

ericP: next agenda...the template...

w3c/lws-ucs#119

hadrian: add requirements as issues in the github repository
… we can make changes directly to the directly as opposed to issues...

csarven: PR 119...how useful this is right now
… what we agree was a template on how the requirements were expressed...
… we were trying out how to figure out how to express the requirements based on the use cases...
… we should focus on the generating the requirements from the use cases

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that acceptance of a UC in the document is not acceptance of its requirements

TallTed: this is not a non-normative document
… its not a spec doc and not referred to as such
… the use cases are what we derive requirements from
… harnessing the use case (at least some of them) to determine what the requirements are
… and put into the requirements such that they will not prevent a use case

ericP: I propose csarven provide an alternate PR

hadrian: I think Sarven has a problem with the language

TallTed: I agree with the generality of what you are saying Sarven...
… I think things can go faster if you put together a boilerplate template...I believe you have done things like this before...

csarven: I can review and provide guidance on the UCR but I dont have the time to own this. I've already reviewed the PR and linked to existing work for reference. Perhaps we need additional editors or authors. Additionally, ask the group to provide more reviews to the PR. We need to agree on the distinction between the language used for the conformance statement or clauses language that would go into a specification and from

Use cases update

hadrian: I selected only four issues for discussion...

Consensus on shared context issues https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/issues

acoburn: there are alot of use cases at this point (over a hundred)
… share a certain number of assumptions...
… assemble a set of those into context issues linked to the individual use cases...so we dont have to restate 15 different assumptions..

ericP: is there a process by which we establish consensus?

acoburn: ...people would ask questions...there hasnt been alot...today is about sussing that out

<acoburn> Shared Context issue

<gb> Issue 117 Basic Storage Context (by hzbarcea) [needs-discussion]

acoburn: this one is related to storage

<csarven> the language used for functional or non-functional requirements go into a UCR.

ericP: we have an approach to factoring the issues and the requirements....
… and we have a question of how they are worded...
… and whether we intend to meet those implicit requirements...
… Hadrian, does that capture the set of meta issues?

csarven: #115 is a bit too specific (as an example)

<gb> Issue 115 not found

<ericP> ack

<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to summarize

ericP: as I understand the purpose of the PR is to factor out the commonalities so the same text isnt repeated over and over...
… I understand, that when we require some documentation of what they mean...
… combination of factoring a use case summary and a glossary...

hadrian: that is correct it was stated a few times that way

<hadrian> The glossary ultimately MUST exist in the document itself

ericP: would you (Sarven) be content to have the back links in the final document connecting to all of the sources of the glossary

ericP: I am going to ask others to review the PR...
… look at the issue 117 which provides some of this factoring...
… and 119 which provides a template using these...

hadrian: I propose for me to work on the glossary for next week
… that may make it easier to maybe agree on the terms....

ericP: if people can help out by looking at that for next week

ericP: any other business?
… two minutes....we are closed...

ACTION: hadrian to create a PR for the document to create a glossary

<gb> Created action #14

Summary of action items

  1. hadrian to create a PR for the document to create a glossary
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 242 (Fri Dec 20 18:32:17 2024 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/do you still/Hadrian, do you still/

Succeeded: s/Sarvin/Sarven/

Succeeded: i|add requirements as issues |subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/lws-ucs/pull/119

Succeeded: s/generating the requirement/generating the requirements/

Succeeded: s/I dont have the time to own this/I can review and provide guidance on the UCR but I dont have the time to own this. I've already reviewed the PR and linked to existing work for reference. Perhaps we need additional editors or authors. Additionally, ask the group to provide more reviews to the PR. We need to agree on the distinction between the language used for the conformance statement or clauses language that would go into a specification and from

All speakers: acoburn, csarven, ericP, hadrian, TallTed

Active on IRC: acoburn, AZ, csarven, eBremer, ericP, hadrian, ryey, TallTed