<joanie> agenda: this
<joanie> agenda: be done
<scribe> scribe: janina
jd: It's customary to take the
last two weeks of December off
... I'm unavailable 7 Dec. Do we want to meet 14 Dec?
mk: Should depend on the agenda?
ss: Would we need it?
jd: At TPAC we determined that a
face to face in 2018 would be useful
... I'm suggesting April or May
... Also thinking it could be in Ontario, phps Mozilla in
Toronto
... Reasons include key Mozilla participants
mk: Is good for me
... I'm thinking we may need yet another F2F, not just spring
and TPAC
... Or phps more days to cover a very full agenda
[discussion of desirable participation and potential venues]
jg: April better than May for me. Could probably participate in person
janina: FYI Passover and Easter are both around April 1
<joanie> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/2017-11_PR_wai-aria/results
jd: We have plenty of support to move forward but missing some implementer vendors.
mc: Probably not a problem because they have implementations in AAM
... We have one comment on Dpub module, though supports even if we don't implement the requested change
... I'm working on it
<joanie> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/2017-11_PR_dpub-aria/results
mc: I'm currently looking at
publishing on 12 Dec, but want to discuss APG timeline
... Prefer to pub AAMs together, but not really necessary to do
that
... Would like to send Transition Request 1 Dec
jd: What's the requested Dpub change?
mc: Want Abstract role to descend from landmark
mk: Let's please not decide such a thing now in haste!
mc: We only need to show we responded to them. They're not opposing moving forward, even if we disagree
jd: I'll look to provide forensic pointer
mc: That would be helpful
ss: Phps for 1.2?
mc: That's a possible response.
jd: But, believe we considered
and decided it's not a good idea
... Will try to dig out refs
jd: First repo ...
mc: Has been a discussion with
Editors for some time
... Moving to have each spec have it's individual repo
... Were waiting for a time when little editing was ongoing,
and that's now
... Have begun to split out
... Should be finished soon
... Editor draft location will change
... Expect some files will disappear because they've been moved
elsewhere
jd: Wondering redirects in both Master and ghpages
mc: Just being cautious
... If we don't need a gh pages, we won't create--no need
<joanie> master remains the same (unstable, Editor's draft)
<joanie> gh-pages remains the same (snapshot of Editor's draft)
mk: Asks about auto ...
mc; Will set up auto snapshot
<joanie> NEW: stable branch will be used for Working Draft content (it won't be the Working Draft, however; Michael does the publishing routine.). This is where stuff goes when "done" as in completed the new-workflow process agreed upon during TPAC.
<MichaelC> Workflow proposal
<joanie> NEW: Version branch (e.g. "1.1") will be done when spec enters CR so we can immediately begin working on new versions.
jd: i.e. CR == API Freeze
mk: Asking about tag
jd: Can branch and tag
mk: Agree the CR timing
mc: People outside the WG unlikely to see Editors Drafts
mk: Concerned it's easy to see what is planned for next rev
mc: Master would have the things not yet stable
mk: Asking about picking and choosing what's merged and what's not merged
jd: Can squash and merge
... Leaves us with only one thing to cherry pick in
... Believe this isn't difficult, incl merge conflict
resolution
mk: Suggesting Master should be mostly stable
mc: May need to develop
discipline
... But note this is for WG participants--not public
mc; Noting a new tool PR Preview -- generates a preview and may help in workflow
<joanie> https://github.com/tobie/pr-preview
mc: Should happen within the
coming week
... Tooling probably in January
... Repo Manager -- tracks changes from non patent agreement
contributors
jg: How will this impact if we
have additional Editors?
... Isn't this for single Editor?
jd: No
... Work would be in feature branch. Could be many people
working there. Only when finished does it move to Master
mc: This procedure should not intro new conflicts
mk: Concerned about people
continuing to add to feature branch after Master commit
... It's the forking which is main concern
mc: Should not need forks
... Key is to protect Master and Stable -- work among many in
feature branches should be OK
... Are we agreed on publishing timelines?
mk CfC for APG?
mk: Have given notice this is coming. Would Tuesday work?
mc: Can't have CfC closing on pub
date
... Webmaster will be overloaded on the 14th, would like to pub
sooner
mk: Unsure I can stable our branch by the 5th
mc: We probably don't need a full 7 day CfC
janina: Notes group policy is 48-hours
mk: So CfC closing the 8th?
... OK. Let me know anything you need from me
mc: Messaging?
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152 of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found embedded ScribeOptions: -final *** RESTARTING DUE TO EMBEDDED OPTIONS *** Default Present: Joanmarie_Diggs, Stefan, Schnabel, janina, Stefan_Schnabel, Irfan_Ali, matt_king, jongund, MichaelC Present: Irfan_Ali Joanmarie_Diggs MichaelC Stefan_Schnabel janina jongund matt_king Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Found Date: 30 Nov 2017 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]