<kcoyle> proposed: approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/08/20-dxwg-minutes
<DaveBrowning> 0 (not present)
<kcoyle> +1
<antoine> +1
<ncar> +1
<kcoyle> tomB says +1
<plh> 0
<antoine> 0 (not present)
Resolved: Approve minutes https://www.w3.org/2019/08/20-dxwg-minutes
Karen: Dave, have you looked at steps to recommendation?
<kcoyle> Steps to recommendation: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/Steps-to-Recommendation-2019
Dave: Helpful.
Karen: Worked with Philippe to lay out steps from here to Rec.
… Dave, where is DCAT in this process?
Dave: Had meeting with Philippe begin-August, so no surprise, but August has been quiet.
… But everyone will be back by end-August.
… I thought we got WG approval - delegating decision to DCAT group. No substantive changes.
… We have marked features at risk.
… Hope DCAT group can convene first week Sep and prepare transition request.
Philippe: Last WD was in May. We must produce CR in Sep. WG must be aware of "at risk".
Dave: This was discussed 3 weeks ago. We started with conservative list of features at risk.
… So in some cases, "at risk" seem solid.
Philippe: No down-side to having features "at risk".
Karen: Need another vote?
Philippe: We need WG decision on publishing - unless you delegate to DCAT group.
… At the latest by Sep 17.
Dave: Should be able to do by next week (my opinion).
Action: Dave to write an intro for a poll to approve DCAT as CR, send to chairs.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-361 - Write an intro for a poll to approve dcat as cr, send to chairs. [on Dave Raggett - due 2019-09-03].
Karen: DCAT sounds on track.
Philippe: Last time we discussed what we plan to do by end of [].
Dave: We intend to follow through.
… Andrea working on implementation report - we have until end-October.
… At that point we may be able to cross off some "at risk" things.
<plh> action-361?
<trackbot> action-361: David Browning to Write an intro for a poll to approve dcat as cr, send to chairs. -- due 2019-09-03 -- OPEN
Karen: Unfortunately Lars not on calls - may need to schedule a call with him (preparatory call).
Nick: I can help with that.
… Major hold has been my W3C status. Resolved now; my status will change.
… having regular conneg meetings.
… Hoping to be at [] stage one week ago, but looking at time table - should be okay - also, in line with IETF document.
Karen: When did we lastsee the Conneg document?
Nick: April 4 circa, 2PWD.
Karen: Reviewable version by next week?
Nick: 3PWD Candidate should be ready next week.
Karen: Is there an easy way to tell WG what has changed?
<SimonCox> regrets from me again this week - I am on an ESIP call.
Nick: Best to look at document from scratch. Changes throughout. Updated examples. Most critical: completion of one approach in the document.
… And tying to the [theoretical approach].
Karen: Nick or Lars write up a guide to reading? Explain in brief prose what people should look for.
Action: Nick to write up an introduction to the upcoming Conneg WD.
<trackbot> Error finding 'ncar'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
Action: ncar to write up an introduction to the upcoming Conneg WD.
<trackbot> Error finding 'ncar'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
Action: @ncar to write up an introduction to the upcoming Conneg WD.
<trackbot> Error finding '@ncar'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
Karen: Poll is open to the end of the month.
Karen: We asked who can work on it. Primary focus of WG should be DCAT and Conneg.
… There is support for reopening: 10 to 1.
… People do change their votes.
… Five people willing to work, six no.
… Ten say: "do as Note".
… Do we have a chair?
… Without a chair, will not happen.
Antoine: Not sure I can volunteer to chair in sense of organizing calls - may not be able to attend many.
… Can certainly try to organize the work and spearhead.
Karen: Both DCAT and Conneg have had weekly or bi-weekly meetings. Philippe, for a Note, done more formally?
… So how group organizes itself is ok as long as work gets done?
Philippe: Yes
Antoine: We can have careful issue discussion, but for calls, may be easier to piggyback on regular calls.
Karen: Fine as long as WG is informed. Philippe, even though Note does not go through CR, it is still a product of WG and needs approval?
Philippe: Yes.
… No deadlines. No requirement to have consensus on content, but need agreement of WG to publish.
… So up to you guys.
Karen: Really until last day of charter?
Philippe: Yes!
Karen: End of December.
Philippe: You can publish btw Christmas and New Years' Eve!
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to say I have agreed
Karen: You can look at poll results to see who agreed to work on it.
… So we can consider you the chair?
Antoine: Yes.
… Glad to see some can help!
Karen: You can create wiki pages, Github, whatever you want.
Karen: Status 2PWD April 2, which is when we put on hold.
… Majority for Rec track, minority for Note.
Philippe: We are required by process, if was CR, W3C would publish as Note.
… Would be surprised if it makes it to CR by mid-month.
… So many open issues.
… Concerned. Would encourage members of this WG to bring unresolved issues to attention of editors and this plenary group.
… Because must be resolved by mid-Sep.
… Bring up objections ASAP, because mid-Sep is too late.
ncar: My POV: we need to update status of issues. Our plan over next week: create additional issues for threads that have more than one issues.
… We haven't completed the feedback cycle on some of them.
… Hope by next plenary to have better grip.
Philippe: "Addressing issues" means responding to original commenter. Director will look to make sure this has been done.
… So that WG can approve as CR.
Karen: Suggest you bring to the group a list of what you consider substantive issues.
… ASAP need a list.
Karen: Appears there have been changes to doc since last published draft.
… Should people be looking at Editors' Draft?
ncar: Changes in github.io since April.
Karen: Can you determine that? Has been quite a while since people have looked at it.
… Where should people be working?
ncar: Always the editors' draft.
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to ask Philippe about requirements re: responding to commenters
<kcoyle> TomB: some of the comments date back to February (actually January!)
<plh> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#formal-address
<kcoyle> ... what needs to be resolved in terms of consensus; doesn't give commenters much time to respond
Philippe: Never seen a WG working in such a tight time.
… Each issue needs to be responded with rationale.
… Can have some bulk responses (consolidate, point people to resolutions).
<Zakim> plh, you wanted to point Tom to https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#formal-address and to ask about wide review
Philippe: The other point: wide review: we haven't even started the wide review.
… Will need to solicit comments.
… Reach out to community - need to answer question: did you reach out?
Nick: Some comments in January - in one case, party not responding. We haven't updated anything in some cases - will try to get feedback from Top Quadrant, etc. About seven issues from one person.
… Do "semi-bulk" response.
… We got feedback from ODRL. We have an implementation from ODRL. Need to go wider.
Karen: ODRL never posted to comments list.
Nick: We will be listing the implementation.
Action: Ncar to ask ODRL group to post comments to public mailing list.
<trackbot> Error finding 'Ncar'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/track/users>.
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to clarify that commenters do not have same deadline
Philippe confirms that to close an issue, must provide a rationale - both for external and internal comments.
Philippe: You provide rationale. Can set deadline (a reasonable one) for respond. Usually, we would give a month, but we may need to chase people down to get responses.
Antoine: About this problem of closing issues where many have commented:
… needs to be a process for getting agreement with original commenter.
Philippe: You may want to ask commenters to open separate issues, especially if solution raises additional requirements.
Karen: Peter and I will try to get information about deadlines and next steps to the group as a whole. So people have an idea what work is required.
Philippe: People must respond if they do not agree.
Meeting adjourned.
Succeeded: s/Nick/ncar/
Succeeded: s/TOPIC Admin/topic: Admin/
Succeeded: s/RESOLVED Approve minutes/resolved: Approve minutes/
Succeeded: s/TOPIC DCAT Update/topic: DCAT Update/
Succeeded: s/TOPIC Conneg/topic: Conneg/
Maybe present: Dave, Karen, Nick, Philippe