Meeting minutes
Minutes
<kaz> Feb-8
McCool: any objections to minutes?
McCool: hearing none, published
Planning
McCool: We should table the use cases call for now since we should work on the charter
… since we can use the use cases call
McCool: ege can you send a reminder about the marketing call?
Ege: yes, the chairs and staff can be present in that meeting
Developer meeting
McCool: we have talked about having a developer meeting
McCool: they should be in the week of march 27
McCool: let's do the rest of the discussion in the testing call
McCool: there is also a binding meetup at the JP CG
Kaz: I have put it in the agenda. I thought we have two events, one binding meetup and one testing
McCool: what is the purpose of the binding meetup?
Kaz: chairs and some other participants will handle the topic for japanese stakeholders
McCool: I think we should focus on one deliverable
Kaz: that is why I want to split them
Kaz: we can take the feedback of the JP CG in the form of a report
Publication Schedule
McCool: we have missed the deadline for charter draft submission
Ege: there is a PR for update from Scripting API
… also mine for Binding Templates
McCool: we can change the date
PR 1074
<kaz> wot PR 1074 - Update wg-2021-extension-plan.md Scripting publication
Daniel: yes so one for review and then the publication date
McCool: I would like to merge it, any objections?
PR 1075
<kaz> wot PR 1075 - Update wg-2021-extension-plan.md - charter
McCool: no conflicts.
… any objections?
McCool: now march 1 is the deadline for the charter draft
McCool: we should revisit the profile schedule
McCool: I will update discovery deadline and bring to the discovery call
<McCool_> w3c/
Charter meeting logistics
Kaz: BTW, you mentioned reusing the UC/Architecture calls for the Charter discussion, but/, we should talk with michael lagally for using the UC call and Architecture call for the Charter discussion
McCool: I want to postpone the minutes review
McCool: let's check the minutes quickly because Lagally might have agreed
… it is not clearly recorded within the minutes from yesterday's meeting, but I am sure we discussed it
Kaz: yeah, however, the discussion went messy in the end, and that proposal was not explicitly recorded. So I'd suggest we check with Lagally, and also confirm during this call as well around when to have the Charter discussion.
Publication Schedule - revisited
PR 1071
Ege: about the previous topic, could we look at the PR on binding templates
McCool: not hearing any objections and it is an update
<McCool_> wot PR 1071 - Add Binding Templates to publication plan
<McCool_> merged
Charter meeting logistics - revisited
McCool: we are taking more than last time which was 4h
McCool: I do not want to steal UC call given Lagally is not here.
McCool: how about the Discovery call on Feb-27?
McCool: hearing no objections
McCool: then we can have a final draft on the march 1st
Ege: should we have the details document ready as well?
McCool: maybe but it is not a must
Ege: how about the policy?
McCool: not for now, it is an internal decision
McCool: we do not even need work items
McCool: it is good for planning purposes
Kaz: I agree. If the detailed descriptions were ready for the AC review, we could add links to those resources. However, that's not the case. So we should concentrate on the high-level descriptions within the Charter.
(Lagally joins)
McCool: I believe we have decided to use arch call for charter, are you ok with that?
McCool: also, during this call we have agreed to use the discovery call for charter discussion
Lagally: if we can use the use cases call for charter discussion
… it would be better
McCool: let's use discovery and if not enough, let's use the use cases call too
Lagally: I am missing the big picture for the next charter
Lagally: especially for the TD, I see no major proposed new features that justify a major version upgrade.
Lagally: what is the high level purpose of the work for the next 2-3 years
McCool: for td 2.0, we have a long list of waiting features
Kaz: I agree
McCool: let's have more discussion tomorrow
McCool: I havent had time to think about testing in a while
McCool: I have been playing with cameras and found way to cover gaps
Liaisons
McCool: any comments about liaisons
Kaz: PLH is happy to help us about liaisons, so we should invite him to the Charter meeting when we talk about liaisons (as he himself also proposed).
McCool: we should invite PLH to review the charter
McCool: we should have a reviewable draft. Let's talk about when to invite PLH tomorrow.
WoT CG collaboration
Meetup on Feb 23
https://
Ege: will have a meetup tomorrow on Feb 23. Information available within the calendar above.
McCool: I cannot attend but please attend if you are interested in the topic
wot-charter-drafts PR 41 - Expand WoT CG collaboration
CG collaboration text for the WG Charter
McCool: the md document is just for us internally, it will not go into the charter
Kaz: this PR 41 for the Charter document is fine. However, we still need to elaborate the policy about CG collaboration, and that should be done separately from the Charter work itself.
Lagally: There is another PR about the role of the IG
Lagally: IG collab should not be limited to use cases
McCool: please use the suggestion button
Ege: where should the detailed policy should go?
Kaz: we should work on the detailed policy at some point, but that's not required now.
McCool: we can work on that md document
McCool: let's start at 10 past
<kaz> [adjourned]