Meeting minutes
Minutes approval
https://
Sebastian: Minutes approved
<kaz> vF2F Day 4
Sebastian: could add link to scripting slides
Kaz: will do
<sebastian> https://
<kaz> (link for Daniel's slides added)
Sebastian: Scripting minutes are ok
Sebastian: Next is last day of TPAC
https://
<sebastian> https://
Sebastian: OPCUA presentation can also be added, see link above
Sebastian: another topic was T2TRG/DID
<kaz> (link for Sebastian's slides added)
Sebastian: Finally we talked with Manu Sporny about TD versioning
… outcome was *new* namespace
Sebastian: Next was PF and testing report
No objections to approve minutes -> publish
Sebastian: All other minutes are already approved
Current WG Charter Extension
Sebastian: Talked in Editors call about 12 month extensions (vs 6 month)
… Kaz mentioned concerns about longer review phase
… I prefer having stricter deadlines
… however having 6 month first and extending later causes issues
… McCool supports 12 months extension but would like to stick to the current roadmap
Sebastian: I agree with that
Sebastian: other opinions?
Kaz: I agree with SK & McCool
… 2 more points
… 1. Official review needed for longer than 6 months anyway
… 2. basically we're already in "wrapping-up" mode and the extended period (regardless of whether it's 6mo or 12mo) should be used for the wide reviews and test work. Feature freeze should be done within this year
Lagally: I think we need specific dates
… REC in 6 months is desirable
… most people start implementing once the spec is final
… hence, we should try not to delay
… at the moment it is not clear what we do in the second 6 months period
Kaz: ML, great comment
… we suggest to keep tight schedule
… should check schedule weekly
… in 2nd half we can start thinking about next charter
… we don't need to wait till end of charter
… the 2nd half can be used for review comments but we can restart earlier with next charter
Ege: Step 3 (wide review) in plan can take 6 months
… the plan does not mention it
… by mid May we can start incorporating comments
… Q: Can we incorporate things also after CR phase ?
Kaz: We can ask for review earlier
… after CR we cannot change normative part
… changing normative parts means new CR
… -> should ask for review early
Sebastian: Yes, we should start with asking for review soon
<kaz> wide review guideline
Kaz: The wide review process has been improved
… should be quicker than in the past
Sebastian: Yes, should start review process in December
Lagally: 2 comments
… 1. Group-wide review should not take more than 3 months
… 2. Not sure what we mean by "relevant features"
Sebastian: Yes, there seems to be some misunderstanding
… task force should decide what goes into TDv1.1
… or what should be deferred to 2.0
Lagally: Normative features, not sure what we mean by that
Sebastian: We just need to clarify
Lagally: maybe change "covered" to be "included"
… this seems clearer
Kaz: w.r.t. point 0 in extension plan
… McCool removed Architecture
… I would like to see all 4 normative documents (TD, Arch, Profile & Discovery)
… TD and Arch seems stable
Lagally: For the profile I don't think it is realistic
… profile freeze cannot be done in some days
Kaz: Clarification for normative sections are different from feature freeze
… structure should be clarified first
Ege: I don't think this is possible for Profile now
Lagally: We still have issues
… we need to decide
… it is pre-mature to decide at the moment
Kaz: We need to have a date "when" Profile can be clarified
Lagally: Structure/features need to be done by end of January
Sebastian: Point 0 (zero) is not about decisions. It is rather about clarifications ...
… should we remove Point 0 ?
… it seems to confuse people
Lagally: Still don't know about canonical features
Sebastian: TD should be freezed by Dec 15
… we miss implementation of canonical feature
… this would mean removing it
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to react to s
Kaz: point 0, need to identify structure first
… details later
… if we cannot do that, I don't believe in the deadlines
… TD/Arch stable
… profile work still ongoing, but we can add "at risk" statements
Lagally: If we want to make progress, I think we should remove point 0
Ege: Kaz mentioned TD/Arch are stable
… I think there is still some work needed
<Ege> https://
Kaz: The pending PRs to Arch do not change feature. It is more about restructuring
Ege: Issue 625 is a blocker to me
Sebastian: I guess we should tackle this issue in Arch call
… what about point 0
Kaz: I suggest to decide on structure
… we are already in wrapping-up mode
… we should not add big changes now
Lagally: Agree that we need to decide on structure
… removing an entire structure is not what we want
Kaz: Should concentrate on sections that are incomplete
Kaz: Point 0 -> could be rephrased -> look into sections that need improvement
Sebastian: <updated description accordingly>
Lagally: Okay
Kaz: 12 month extension with 6 months schedule ok by everyone?
Sebastian: About 12 months, should we make decision today?
Kaz: PLH proposed a quick resolution
Lagally: I think 10 people in the call are not enough
Kaz: Makes sense, but we have all main editors in the call. McCool agreed with 12 m also
Lagally: I am still concerned because major contributors are not on this call and may not have the bandwidth to continue attending meetings for a year
Sebastian: What about decision in Arch call tomorrow?
Lagally: +1
<kaz> kaz: preliminary resolution now; and confirmation tomorrow
DP: suggest to send email about 12 m extension plan
<sebastian> preliminary proposal: the group decide to extend the current WG charter for 12month. A final decision will be made in tomorrow's Architecture call. An email will be sent to the WG group as reminder.
<sebastian> preliminary resolution: the group decide to extend the current WG charter for 12month. A final decision will be made in tomorrow's Architecture call. An email will be sent to the WG group as reminder.
Rechartering
IG Charter re-Chartering status
https://
Kaz: Issue#274
… related to wot-marketing Issue 217
… related wot-testing Issue 198
Sebastian: change marketing to CG?
Kaz: we can do so in the future, but should not do that now since we have it in the draft already
Kaz: I suggest we should have a resolution mentioning that we update charter
<sebastian> proposal: the group agrees that the text proposal from https://
RESOLUTION: the group agrees that the text proposal from https://
<kaz> [adjourned]