Meeting minutes
Approve previous minutes
/www/.w3.org/2022/07/19-wot-marketing-minutes.html/
<kaz> July-19
<structure/wording discussions>
PRs
Moving Explainer
PR 331 - Move Explainer to Marketing repo
Ege: not clear from last time.. what to do with this PR
Daniel: Not sure either
Kaz: Explainer for specifications and explainer for marketing are 2 different things
… suggest to *not* call marketing document "explainer"
McCool: should archive *old* document and not just moving
Ege: Name it "Intro to TD1.1"?
McCool: We also have explainers for Discovery and Architecture
… copy .. rename and add content
Ege: rewriting "Documentation" page?
McCool: Architecture explainer has list to other documents as well.
… we might not need that if we have it on Documentation page
… copy explainers and add it to "Other Documents" section
Kaz: We should have broader discussion with editors.. how to manage spec generation procedure
… explainers should stay in repos for TAG reviews etc
… make clear that "marketing" task forces did not generate them
… part of W3C process
Ege: Link only recent ones (ie. 1.1 and *not* 1.0)
Decisions
Case Study for JSON Schema
Issue 329 - JSON Schema Case Study
Ege: what is left: We should mention the case study in main call
… to get their opinions
… Coralie confirmed we can participate in the study
McCool: Adding it to main call agenda sounds fine
Ege: or send email?
McCool: Maybe email is better
Kaz: wondering who generates text for case study?
Ege: I don't plan to be mentioned as "author"...
… suggest to mention "WoT team"
Kaz: Can we expect reviewers ?
… not sure about this ...
Ege: We will fill template
… they have own writers
… w.r.t. format
… see https://
… template asks for questions
… proper text is published... not just the answers
… we can also write everything ourselves
… I started answering the questions
see https://
… everyone can leave comments
… I will finish the questions today and send email
McCool: Suggest to use positive statements in contrast to "counter fragmentation"
Using the call for CG IG collab or not
Ege: next week charter review period is over
Ege: wonder about collaboration, https://
Kaz: From my viewpoint. CG is different mechanism
… kind of internal liaison between WG/IG
… we should think about how to split activities
Ege: not about long term.. just for some weeks
Kaz: from team-side... CG do not have team contact support
Ege: Question: How CG can organize PlugFest or updating Website
Kaz: which part of PlugFest or Website should be handled by CG?
… and how to manage those resources
Ege: Exactly. That's what I would like clarify today
Kaz: This should be decided by CG group.. not in this call
Ege: CG decides and brings result to IG ?
Kaz: Separate initiative also possible.. besides IG PlugFests
McCool: Testing belongs to WoT
… future PlugFests could be organized by CG
… should make clear who is organizing events
Kaz: Currently, charter states PlugFests are organized by IG
McCool: Agree, but we might want to update this statement
… in charter
… CG not mentioned in charter
Kaz: Clarify expectation from community side
… collaborative discussions should lead to the new organization of events
… should be careful about IG role
… what is the work of IG
… liaison the only thing left? difficult for re-chartering
Ege: testing should remain for IG
McCool: or WG
Ege: Okay.. CG has some work to do now...
<Mizushima> +1 kaz
<kaz> [adjourned]