Meeting minutes
<Les> +
Approval of minutes of last meeting
https://
<Jakub> +1
PROPOSED: Approve minutes of last meeting
<Simon> +0
<FranckC> +1
<annette_g> +1
<LarsG> +1
<FranckM> +1
<YoucTagh> +1
<antoine> +0
<nicholascar> +0
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes of last meeting
Event series
antoine: something has happened to our event series
<antoine> https://
antoine: and we have a new series
… beginning August 6th and ending in April 2028
… there might be some old link, so watch out
… and make sure to always use the proper link
Forming of task forces
antoine: has everyone registered for the task forces
… they want to join. This is done through
… the W3C website
<YoucTagh> https://
antoine: Please check that you have registered for the task fordes you're interested in
… the chairs will have a look at the results of the previous calls
… and make sure all are registered
<Simon> I have registered for two task forces
antoine: We need facilitators for all task forces.
… They convene the group.
… For DCAT Ricardo has volunteered. Prof has none.
… It's not a hughe piece of work
nicholascar: Currently busy with data shapes. Prepared to take on more work after December, but we need an interim facilitator.
YoucTagh: Can take that task in the meantime. Probably first task is to organise the first meeting.
… Do we have to make that through Pierre-Antoine?
antoine: Yes, probably. We need to talk to P-A when he is back.
… It's not much formal reporting required. The task forces
… will need to organise themselves
ACTION: Chairs to organise call between facilitators and staff contact to set up first calls
FranckM: is the agreement that we have plenary and task force meeting alternating weeks?
antoine: Yes, that's the agreement
FranckM: How will communication about issues etc. work?
antoine: If we work through github everyone will receive notifications
… The task forces can choose their time slots themselves,
… there is no need to re-use the same slot as the plenary
… maybe even shifting times depending on who is on the group and in which time zone
FranckC: There was in agreement in the last meeting to have
… alternating meetings, but we made no resolution.
… but it seemed the most reasonable option.
antoine: It seems that everyone is fine with that idea
FranckC: We don't need a resolution on that, says Pierre-Antoine
antoine: DataCube has not a facilitator. Volunteers?
… there can be several facilitators...
… VVD?
FranckC: proposes Dan Gilman.
FranckM: I volunteer, too.
<Simon> The DQV taskforce is mentioned on https://
antoine: Good, then we have two.
<people figuring out how to add a facilitator...>
antoine: We keep DQV on the back burner for the time being
… the task force is not officially formed yet
… currently the editors don't have much time given the priorities of the WG
Discussion on GitHub repositories
<antoine> w3c/
<gb> Issue 1641 Create separate repository for each DXWG deliverable (by dr-shorthair) [packaging]
antoine: So far there is agreement to have separate repositories
… for each deliverable. DCAT is a specific case.
… Two approaches, both with pros and cons.
… This is not only about DCAT but also about the GitHub presence of the WG
… Comments? Preferences?
<Simon> I note that Jakub and Simon have conflicting views on this!
Jakub: Preference for one less repo, i.e. moving to a new one. What would be the role of the old one?
… I could be confusing for users to know in which repo to open issues.
… but otherwise no strong opinion. Could live with either resolution.
… Question is, do we keep the old repo or not.
Simon: Feels strongly for option two (new repo). Is a cleaner option.
… If we just rename the old repo we might have problems
… with traceability of previous work (old issues etc.).
… Also problem with issues in the existing repo which might not be cleanly moved to new repositories. Also the closed issues not having to do with DCAT can pose a problem.
… In the old DataExchange we didn't have problems transferring issues to new repos. It doesn't work with open PRs, though, so we need to handle those manually.
Jakub:
<nicholascar> I'm going to head off folks, falling asleep in my chair! (and the profiles repos are already separate!)
Jakub: understand. What do we say to readers of the old repo?
Simon: that would be relatively straightforward to add a paragraph in the README pointing them to the right repo.
… If someone doesn't follow the instructions we can point them directly to the proper place.
annette_g: Issues left behind would be a negative.
… We should try to close open issues and not just neglect them.
<Simon> If a new issue gets submitted to the old repo it can be transferred to the correct (new) place quite easily using GitHub processes
annette_g: Otherwise no preference
FranckC: Do we archive the previous repos or do we just put a warning on top while keeping them active?
<Simon> I don't think we need to archive the old repo.
FranckC: In closed repos we cannot open new issues.
antoine: If we say it's only old stuff, then we can archive.
… But as annette_g says, we should do due diligence and work on the open issues.
… This is an argument in favour of keeping the old repo. That would make us feel more committed to working on the old issues.
<Simon> I agree that we should deal with all issues in the old repo. Then when there are no open issues it might be clearly safe to archive it, maybe ...
Simon: We don't need to archive the old repos
… when we've closed all issues, maybe we can archive it.
<Simon> Do we need a motion for the strategy to resolve issue #1641 ?
antoine: If DCAT keeps the old repo as their main repo, they might feel responsible for issues that are not theirs.
Simon: Browsed through open issues and tagged some with DCAT. The complement of those issues need attention.
antoine: It seems that people are in favour of opening a new repo
Simon: It was very frustrating to see the interlocking of threads and PRs in a WG without separate repos.
Ideas for wiki
<antoine> https://
antoine: This is the old wiki. FranckC and antoine have begun to add new material.
… antoine promised to work on the wiki, but better to discuss in plenary.
… Ideas?
… We can open the topic again later.
FranckC: what would be important to keep/recycle and what can we archive?
… It's hard to decide.
annette_g: There's a section about the charter that refers to the old charter. That needs to be updated.
… There are key dates for 2018 and 2019 in there.
antoine: There are old discussions about profiles that we probably need to keep.
<YoucTagh7> https://
YoucTagh7: There is also a wiki in GitHub.
FranckC: Actually three wikis: W3C, GitHub and GitHub Pages
antoine: That should be added to our ToDo list.
… the github wikis need to be checked by people in the task forces, since it's often specific to a deliverable
FranckC: Topics for next meeting's agenda
… Speak now or send a mail to the group.
<Simon> Thanks all. Goodnight!
<FranckC> Bye all