<scribe> Scribe: Ted
Rudi's Call for consensus email
Rudi: agenda is also in WebEx
chat window
... if anyone wishes to add another topic, please speak
up
... last week I sent the CfC email to solicit feedback,
comments or objections
... I have not seen a response
... the window for comments is the end of the week
Ted: if there are no formal
objections from WG participants before the 26 January deadline
I will ready the document and send the publication request to
W3C Webmaster, Director and Communication Team
... hopefully will be published on the 30th
scribe: if there is formal
objection to proceeding we would need to discuss within the
group and either address concerns or prepare a dissenting
opinion document
... Candidate Recommendation publication triggers a Call for
Exclusions (patents). to date we have not had any lodged for
our specification work
scribe: I have drafted the WG recharter to reflect us successfully entering CR with VISS
Rudi: any other comments?
Magnus: I'm pretty happy with it, let's move on
Rudi: Essentially this discussion
has been going back on forth about whether it should become a
standard
... we have received some extensive pushback and the
argumentation makes sense
... VIAS has evolved from a rather thin client library that
communicates to a VISS server to a myriad of protocols
... the connection between VIAS and VISS is not that clear
anymore
... the initial idea for VIAS was to make it easier for web
developers without having to handle web socket connections but
a more familiar JS API
... it is still a good compliment to VISS. I concur with W3C
TAG/Director suggestion to publish VIAS as Note and encourage
release of any libraries
... this conversation has been going since TPAC in the mailing
list. VIAS is valuable as a client
Ted: At Hira-san's request I summarized some of the major concerns raised, how a request to advance to CR is unlikely to succeed and what is needed from the group should they wish to
Summary of obstacles for VIAS and group consideration topics
Ted: I drafted a survey to get wider group input as Urata suggested and because we have been hearing from mostly the same people that outline some additional concerns and seeks to gauge input and resource commitments
Survey snapshot since there were access problems
Gunnar: I will take a look and give feedback
Magnus: I was able to access the survey after your changes
Ted: it is unfortunate that Hira
and Urata are not on this call but hopefully this group input
will help bring this to a conclusion
... presently VIAS is not in the draft charter
Gunnar: agree we should defer on
a decision given their absence
... I also agree with your point about revisiting after we have
the REST interface
... we are a little uncertain it would be appropriate to have
VIAS ahead of that
Ted: at TPAC at since by email I have pointed out we can revisit and try to get VIAS back on REC track at a later date
Gunnar: practically it would be useful and worthwhile to have an implementation of VIAS and applied to VISS/RSI (aka v2)
Ted: I will open up that survey by end of day tomorrow
Rudi: let's give a deadline for decision wrt VIAS for next call
Rudi: appreciate drafting that
Ted: Rudi and Paul agreed to be
chairs and I am exploring a third
... please provide any input before the next call
... after group input, I will review with Wendy Seltzer (W3C
Strategy Lead) then send to W3C Management (W3M)
... W3M will provide input and then I send it to the W3C
Advisory Committee (AC)
... AC will indicate support, ideally this will raise awareness
and increase interest among W3C's Members in this activity
Patrick: within the scope it is
written that the services are there to reflect what is
available within the vehicle network
... I see the services as running within the vehicle network
and providing information
Ted: I recycled that wording and open to changes, agree we are not providing direct CAN access since that will freak people out
Gunnar: please send your wording as early as possible so others can react
Rudi: with a new charter and new
work we invite people to consider becoming an editor
... if you know you are definitely inclined please let us know,
otherwise reflect further
Ted: with the WG rechartering to
complete VISS and begin RSI in earnest I want to repeat my call
for editors given at our F2F
... several had expressed interest and needed to confer with
their managers before making the time commitment
[iterate candidate names off the record]
Connect W3C and Github accounts (all in WG encouraged)
Patrick: I will clearly want to be an editor on RSI but we should decide how we are structuring and identify who on what component
Ted: we will want some on "framework" (or whatever we'll call it) and the "modules"
Gunnar: agree not the term
framework and we should structure ourselves carefully
... we will want similar pattern
Ted: I encourage Patrick and Gunnar or Rudi to compare notes on VSS, YAML and related tools for the modules to generate portions of the spec
Gunnar: yes, there are also
command control interfaces that are similar to RPC
... that model might look a little different perhaps but we
will figure that out through examples
Ted: I will reach out to those who expressed interest before privately and as Rudi said anyone interested should let him, me or I know
Proposed WG&BG F2F at Genivi AMM, Munich 17-19 April
Rudi: I proposed by email that we
hold our next F2F at Genivi AMM in Munich in April
... if there is interest I will formally ask. They have been
hospitable in the past and likely inclined to again
Patrick: please
Magnus: last time Peter found the
F2F to be a bit unfocused
... people were distracted with other meetings during AMM
Gunnar: we can try to schedule it such to avoid common conflicts
Rudi: I am probably one of the culprits
(Ted was too, called away to give a couple presentations)
Gunnar: we will work on that
Magnus: I think it is a good location and worth coordinating, we just need to be careful about the conflicts
Rudi: I'll email Karin
Gunnar: happy to support
including the scheduling
... three main days Tuesday through Thursday, let's consider
options on Genivi end and come back with options
[suggestion to have Thursday and Friday]
Patrick: is registration necessary?
Rudi: for Genivi AMM yes but not the W3C F2F
Gunnar: portions are open to non-Genivi members and as Ted mentioned, worthwhile
[adjourned]