Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Agenda for today:
… Rechartering Formal Objection Council status update and CfC conclusion
… DAPT Issue review
… IMSC-HRM (CR1 Exit Criteria)
… Any other business?
… One from me: I said a very long time ago that I would propose a working method
… for Registries in TTWG and I haven't done it, and we need it soon, so I'll try to get that
… done by the first meeting of next year.
Rechartering Formal Objection Council and CfC conclusion
github: https://
Nigel: I haven't received any objections, and some folk have said it looks good.
… Gary, Atsushi, have you received any objections?
Gary: No
Atsushi: No
Nigel: There are 2 unresolved conversations on the pull request.
… The first is about changing "Content producing implementation" to "Content implementation"
… as mentioned by Amy last time.
… 5 days ago Amy asked Tess if she'd be okay with removing "producing" and there's no answer.
… Are we now in limbo?!
… Any preferences for what we do here?
Gary: What would be the next step after we merge?
Atsushi: I believe this scenario should be the first case in FO Council so I'm not quite sure what we should
… or can do here, but I believe the best way is to continue the conversation with the FO Council.
… As far as I can tell, all of the FO Council decided to accept or deny, so to be honest I believe this
… conversation should be a good input to the W3C Process on FO Council matters.
… I have no idea for the best option here.
Nigel: I think, if we've reflected on the FO council proposal and accepted, that should be the end of the matter.
… So the next step should be to approve the charter and move on. I don't see scope in the Process for further argument or discussion
Atsushi: I would believe so
Chris: The concern I have here is that the FO Council proposed a wording change and then Tess
… is saying she doesn't like the word "producing" so she's in disagreement with the Council.
Gary: We don't know that.
Nigel: I think it's slightly the other way round: Tess wanted the word "producing" and the Chair of the FO Council
… proposed removing it.
… What I'd like to do here is what the Chair of the FO Council said, and remove the word "producing".
Chris: Oh I see, I got it. And there's no reply from Tess yet.
Nigel: The other conversation is about the "for example" using conformance language. I've changed "MAY" to "may" as Amy suggested, and she hasn't objected
… So I'll go ahead and resolve that conversation
… We now have all conversations resolved. Does anyone on the call have anything to say about the change from "content producing implementation" to "content implementation"?
(no replies)
Nigel: So let's take a WG decision, the CfC has run its course, and merge the PR. The next stage is to email Atsushi and Amy to say we believe the charter is good to go, following the objection review process
Gary: Sounds good
Atsushi: I agree
RESOLUTION: Merge the pull request and Chair(s) to email team and FO Council Chair with status update.
github-bot, end topic
IMSC-HRM CR1 Exit Criteria w3c/imsc-hrm#56 (Draft Pull Request)
<Github> https://
github: https://
Nigel: Last time we looked at this 28 days ago we said to proceed, and TTWG to continue to review.
… No commits since then.
Atsushi: Now we have agreement on the charter, I propose we describe how the criteria meet the new
… charter requirements.
… We had a bunch of discussions and objections on this area so I believe it might be better
… to describe more logically step by step how the charter requirements lead to these exit criteria.
… Otherwise we may have a similar discussion during CR transition request.
… And when we do final AC review to go from PR to Rec.
Nigel: I think with the charter wording I'd make a couple of changes.
… I'll do them as suggestions.
… First: implementation -> validating implementation
… Second, use the "Content Implementation" wording from the charter.
Pierre: Yes, use the charter language
Nigel: The rest looks fine to me, and I appreciate the start on tests.
… I think we need to create an Implementation Report and link to it from the CR.
Atsushi: Yes, before the transition request it might be better to include the link in Respec metadata config.
… (I may be getting Respec and Bikeshed mixed up)
<atsushi> https://
Nigel: Either way we need to make sure it is in the document.
Atsushi: Pub Rule checks are getting stricter checking all required items.
… Some past publications are now failing for other WGs!
Pierre: My main question is who will draft the IR?
… The Exit Criteria go into the spec.
… Do you want me to do it, and if so, where?
Nigel: In the past we've always put the IRs into the TTWG wiki.
Pierre: Correct. I'm happy to do it, there or somewhere else.
Nigel: Yes please.
Pierre: Where would you like the stub IR to be?
Nigel: I'll take an action to look up what we did and propose a location.
Pierre: Thanks, and I'll wait for your comments on the proposed exit criteria.
Nigel: Okay. Any more for any more on this topic?
<atsushi> https://
Atsushi: Testing current IMSC-HRM spec checklist using CR, it seems we need to define Implementation Experience
… somewhere in the document.
Nigel: That's new.
Atsushi: We need to fix that in the pull request.
Nigel: Make sense to you Pierre?
Pierre: No.
Nigel: The words "implementation experience" are being picked up by Respec and it wants a definition of them.
Pierre: That points to the IR I think.
Nigel: Ah, it may well do, makes sense.
Pierre: Once we create the IR and put a link, it should fix that I think.
Atsushi: That's the second error, the third one is asking for "implementation experience" to be defined.
Gary: It does not need to be in this document, it could be in the IR.
… Some place needs to define Implementation Experience.
SUMMARY: Nigel to propose adjusted CR Exit Criteria wording and a location for an IR, Pierre to create an IR and a pull request to take the document to CR.
Pierre: Thanks
DAPT
Nigel: We've been making good progress.
… I don't think the agenda issues are actually ready for discussion.
… I'll take the labels off them.
Cyril: Yes we're not ready.
… There's one issue marked Done awaiting Confirmation, based on issue 15, raised by Andreas.
Nigel: He's not here.
Cyril: My suggestion is to close the issue.
Nigel: I'm reluctant: last time he was on a call we said we'd say when it's time to do a review,
… and we haven't done that yet.
Cyril: I want to see issues being closed, and I think this is done, so we should close and
… when we think we're ready for FPWD ask for a review from the group.
Nigel: I think the diagram (#86) will be enough to close this, so I'll do it then.
Cyril: Sure, yes.
Nigel: I've linked #15 to #86.
Nigel: Anything else to discuss in terms of issues or pull requests?
Cyril: No I don't think so.
… We'll need one or two registries.
… In general, how does the group feel about reviewing when we think it is stable?
… What should be the process. Keep editing until we think it's good enough for FPWD?
Nigel: Yes, I think that is what we said before and it still makes sense.
… Happy to be told otherwise!
Cyril: It's difficult when there's so much change.
… I think we're getting pretty close - most of the issues are non-technical.
… It's looking more editorial and we're converging rapidly.
Nigel: It seems that way, yes.
… I did notice that PR preview has stopped working properly.
Atsushi: I didn't notice that.
Nigel: The problem is that inline inclusions via Respec are appearing as error messages.
Cyril: It works in the main branch and locally, but not in PR Preview.
Cyril: See Example 1
Atsushi: Oh, this is an issue I've seen before, where images don't appear in PR Preview.
… It just takes the specified file without any other asset in the repository and will output the document
… using the local browser instance. This is what we may expect using PR Preview.
Nigel: I feel that this has broken recently, I may be wrong.
Atsushi: I believe there was no time that external assets worked using PR Preview.
Nigel: Ah, it's a real shame.
Atsushi: Sorry for that, it should happen for images also.
Nigel: Yes, I can confirm that with https://
… OK, it's not stopping us but is making life a bit harder.
Atsushi: Do you assume any specific date for FPWD publication, since it is nearly the end of the year
… and the latest publication date within this year will be 22nd Dec, in 2 weeks.
… If you want to publish this year we need to take some immediate action.
Nigel: I don't think we'll be ready this year. It will have to be next year.
Cyril: I agree. When will the publication pipeline reopen?
Atsushi: Theoretically, 1st January but 2 items to consider.
… One, when TR approval pipeline will start after new year,
… and Two what will happen from FO Council and rechartering.
Cyril: OK, no issue with not publishing this year.
Nigel: Agreed.
Atsushi: Just for comment, W3C Process now has a Registry track we can use.
Nigel: That's right, and there's a formal step for proposing how to manage the Registry, and I need
… to write a proposal for that.
Meeting close
Nigel: We've completed our agenda, just at the meeting end time.
… Thanks everyone. See you in 2 weeks.
… [adjourns meeting]