Meeting minutes
Guests
Sebastian: none
Minutes
Sebastian: (goes through the minutes)
… (mentions the schedule for the Plugfest call)
Kaz: can create a Doodle poll to identify a new slot for the Plugfest
… can include the current Plugfest slot as well
Sebastian: should spell out UCR
Kaz: done (as Use Cases and Requirements)
(approved)
Quick Items
Plugfest call
Sebastian: we won't have any WoT calls next week
… and we'd like to restart the Plugfest call in 2 weeks
Other topic?
Ben: would talk about Profile publication
Sebastian: can add that to the agenda
Architecture
Ege: there is some normative portion within the WoT Architecture
… and we should move that to the TD spec
McCool: minor thing
… there is a link to the Architecture spec
… when to publish the updated drafts for TD and Architecture?
… could remove the link from the Use Cases doc to the Architecture doc, though
Kaz: Ege's proposal is rather a reminder to us all
… if we as the WoT WG are OK, we can go for that direction
… and then the TD TF, the UC TF, etc., should go for that direction
Sebastian: so we should make a resolution
… would it make sense?
Kaz: think there are 3 steps here
… 1. we can make a resolution about the basic direction
… 2. Ege and others can clarify which portion form the Architecture spec to be moved
… 3. we as the whole WG can work on actual spec work for TD and so on
Sebastian: ok
… let's make a resolution
<sebastian> proposal: the group decided that in the future the normative text of the Architecture specification related to the TD features going into the TD specification. Doing so, it should be clarified which portion from the Architecture spec to be moved. Next it should be clarified the actual spec work in Architecture and in the TD.
RESOLUTION: the group decided that in the future the normative text of the Architecture specification related to the TD features going into the TD specification. Doing so, it should be clarified which portion from the Architecture spec should be moved. Next it should be clarified the actual spec work in Architecture and in the TD.
Ege: by when and how to work on the clarification with the Architecture spec?
Sebastian: would ask the TD TF to work on that
Profile publication
Call for resolution: https://
Sebastian: (explains the situation)
… we originally wanted to publish the updated draft as a WG Note
… but the latest W3C Process doesn't allow us to do that
Ben: need to publish it as "Discontinued Draft"
Kaz: right
Ben: have you confirmed that point with PLH?
Kaz: yes, and we can't change the Track from REC Track to Note
Ben: don't think Discontinued Draft would really fit with our case this time
… the original resolution was publishing the draft as a Note or a CR
<EgeKorkan> +1 to ben. Just a small point: Scripting API was never on the REC track
Ben: my preference is rather staying on the REC track
Kaz: note that we can still publish the updated draft as a WD
McCool: it's still work in progress
… would agree with Ben we need to revisit the original resolution as well
Ben: if the Profile goes to 2.0, Profile 1.0 should be a Note
… the current Profile 1.0 is relatively a start of Profile 2.0
Daniel: would like to confirm the name
… don't think "Discontinued Draft" is a good name
… maybe we should talk with PLH again
… we should be able to use the Note Track
… that's what I want to do personally
Kaz: personally would agree with you too
… but given the current/latest Process doesn't allow us to change the Track, we need to think about the other options
Sebastian: would it make sense to invite PLH to talk about that?
Ben: what would happen if we make WoT Profile 1.0 a Discontinued Draft?
… can we work on WoT Profile 2.0?
Kaz: we can safely work on 2.0
… also we can restart 1.0 if we want
<EgeKorkan> https://
Ege: the Process says "we SHOULD publish it as Discontinued Draft", not "MUST"
Any Recommendation-track technical report no longer intended to advance or to be maintained, and that is not being rescinded, should be published as a Discontinued Draft, with no substantive change compared to the previous publication.
Kaz: that's true before the closure of the WG
… but the point here is that we can't change the document Track from REC Track to Note Track
… but we can still publish the updated draft as WD or CR
… so revisiting the resolution would make sense
Ben: we should go back to the W3C Team again
… note the Scripting API once went back to Note
David: wanted to say the WoT Profile is helpful for interoperability
… publishing the WoT Profile 1.0 as Discontinued Draft would be not good
Kaz: according to the latest W3C Process, publishing the updated draft as WD might make sense for the updated draft.
<EgeKorkan> > A technical report should not switch away from the Recommendation Track without due consideration of the Patent Policy implications and approval of W3C’s legal counsel if the Working Group envisions a likelihood of returning to it later.
Kaz: but if we as the whole WG don't want use "Discontinued Draft", we can revisit the resolution
<sebastian> proposal: Group consider the Profile as Note and not as Discontinued Draft.
RESOLUTION: The WG would drive the Profile 1.0 as Note and not as Discontinued Draft.
Use Cases PR
<McCool> proposal: Merge PR372 in Use Cases and Requirements to update the Security and TD User Stories.w3c/
McCool: as announced last week, created a PR as above
… (describes the PR)
… it's related to security, so would make a resolution by the whole group
RESOLUTION: Merge PR372 in Use Cases and Requirements to update the Security and TD User Stories.w3c/
Kaz: any impacts to the Security document?
McCool: no
… it's that we have to keep the Use Cases document updated
… for now, would work on further clean up
AOB?
Sebastian: anything urgent for today?
Kaz: IEs, if you're interested in the funding, please contact the Event Team based on the TPAC page's instruction
[adjourned]