15:39:13 RRSAgent has joined #cg-program 15:39:18 logging to https://www.w3.org/2025/12/04-cg-program-irc 15:39:18 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:39:19 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), dom 15:39:41 Meeting: Community Group Program 15:39:46 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-council/2025Nov/0006.html 15:56:55 denis has joined #cg-program 16:00:02 zakim, who's here? 16:00:02 Present: (no one) 16:00:04 On IRC I see denis, RRSAgent, Zakim, tzviya, cwilso, Ian, dom 16:00:08 present+ Wolfgang 16:00:15 present+ Song 16:00:17 prsent+ Niklas 16:00:20 present+ Niklas 16:00:22 present+ Ian 16:00:53 present+ Dom 16:01:28 niklasmerz has joined #cg-program 16:02:02 present+ Chris_Wilson 16:02:40 Present+ Denis 16:03:00 present+ Peter_Rushforth 16:03:17 Topic: AI Agent Protocol 16:03:21 present+ Niklas Merz 16:03:57 Present+ Elf 16:04:03 Song: Thanks for having me; sorry I missed last call 16:04:20 Slideset: Song_slides 16:04:26 scribe+ 16:05:02 PeterR has joined #cg-program 16:05:13 present+ 16:05:28 present+ Owen_Ambur 16:07:14 [slide 4] 16:09:04 [slide 5] 16:09:31 [slide 6] 16:09:50 [slide 7] 16:11:19 [slide 10] 16:12:03 [slide 11] 16:13:10 [slide 12] 16:15:16 -> https://www.agent-network-protocol.com/ ANP protocol site 16:17:23 [slide 13] 16:17:27 [slide 14] 16:22:11 Topic: CG Program topics 16:22:24 AI-related 16:22:24 AI-driven Web Standards Specification 16:22:24 Agentic Arbitration Protocol 16:22:24 Semantic Agent Communication 16:22:24 Other 16:22:27 Autofill 16:22:29 Infinite Canvas 16:22:31 Data Documentation 16:22:33 Data Interoperating Architecture 16:22:35 Cybernetic Avatar 16:22:37 Ian: 8 new CGs since our last October meeting, 3 of which AI-related 16:23:02 ... maybe we should organize a AI-CG get-together 16:23:49 elf-pavlik has joined #cg-program 16:23:56 ... We are setting in place a system to have new CG chairs automatically informed about this meeting 16:24:23 ... We had a discussion with PSIG about adoption of CG specs by non-W3C SDOs 16:24:32 ... the CLA describes how specs move from CG to W3C WGs 16:24:55 ... but we know of 25+ specs that have transitioned to other orgs, and we had had requests to make that process easier 16:25:42 ... the Patent and Standards Interest Group (PSIG) indicated that for WHATWG, everything is in place, for the others, too complex to treat generally 16:26:17 ... tooling support is a good start 16:28:05 ... At TPAC, we presented mockups for CG Reports 16:28:15 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-96YXga4LLRDmWITdUnjjFtnRnftkS0Dk_yJKBeHBgA/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p 16:29:12 ... we got a lot of feedback, incl making the language about "not being w3c standards" less hostile/more positive 16:29:39 ... suggesting to make the style more distinct from W3C TRs 16:30:34 ... and a suggestion to have a quick signal on "how mature" a report (in terms of a progress bar) 16:30:59 ... which will be integrated in the next round of mockup 16:31:47 ... with 4 stages (early, experimental implementation, standardization plan, transferred) with link to more detailed data below 16:32:10 ... we also discussed metadata management based on work Denis, Dom and Xiaoqian started 16:33:05 ... distinguishing frozen metadata in snapshots from live metadata in live editors draft 16:33:44 ... with the exception of abandonment/transfer state that may need to be forced into snapshots if they were not getting updated to reflect the situation 16:33:54 Present+ Deborah 16:34:40 ... Open question on final reports: today, they're published on w3.org via a github pull request workflow 16:35:09 ... with the goal of reducing confusion between CG/WG - should we move away from using w3.org for these final reports? 16:36:36 Elf: in SOLID CG, we submitted some of the reports for the LWS WG; we discussed whether they needed to be made final 16:36:46 ... my understanding is that this wasn't so critical 16:37:00 https://github.com/w3c/cg-program/blob/main/proposals/spec-lifecycle.md 16:37:35 Ian: the new spec lifecyle hopefully clarifies this, with the "transfered" state 16:37:47 ... we would be interested in feedback 16:38:18 Dom: The question of where to publish would be for snapshots (e.g., those associated with final spec agreements) 16:38:26 ...the reason to have them on w3.org related to additional IPR commitments 16:41:17 Peter: having a place to host final specs on w3c domain is a good feature, to avoid relying on potential domains infrastructure used by CGs 16:41:52 wolfgang: important to have something reliable, stable, independent of github for all final snapshots, 16:42:15 wolfgang: Searchability important 16:42:27 ... this also makes W3C s point of reference to find this type of technical specs 16:42:49 Debbie: +1 on having final reports on w3.org so we know where they are, to make sure they don't go away 16:43:24 ... having a bit more of paperwork to get the final spec stage is a good forcing function for CGs 16:43:33 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:43:34 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/04-cg-program-minutes.html dom 16:45:52 Dom: We welcome feedback (here or in email) about the usefulness of this (relatively new) call 16:46:33 Topic: next meeting 16:46:50 18 February at 16h00 UTC 16:47:03 Anticipating Solid CG election procedure presentation at next meeting. 16:47:04 Feedback: The calls are excellent, presentations by new CGs are also a great idea to establish a CG culture. 16:47:35 RRSAgent, draft minutes 16:47:36 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2025/12/04-cg-program-minutes.html dom