Meeting minutes
<ktk> p+
Scribe: Arndt, Dörthe
Approval of last week's minutes: 1
pfps: there is a differerence between tag and label, that should be fixed
<pfps> the minutes from last week mention GitHub tags where GitHub labels were meant
pchampin: I will change that in the minutes
<Souri> not from me
ACTION: pchampin to amend last week's minutes to avoid confusion between 'tag' and 'label'
<ghurlbot> Created action #39
ora: do we accept with this modification?
… none, then we can accept.
<pfps> resolution on the minutes?
RESOLUTION: accept the minutes https://
Review of open actions, available at 2
pchampin: change of github settings changed, all can now add and change labels
<gkellogg> https://
<pchampin> ghurlbot, close #34
<ghurlbot> Closed action #34
gkellogg: rdf terminology wiki created
… there was some discussion whether it should be in our github, I want to keep all together
Github Wiki
TallTed: I dislike that the wiki does not give notifications, therefore I dislike it
pfps: should we go somewhere else? comparison is there, but not good.
<pchampin> +1 to use markdown pages in the docs/ directory
gkellogg: more feature cause extra work, do we need that given that is more for the current discussion and not for long-lasting access
<AndyS> The wiki is a git repo: `gh repo clone w3c/
ora: I prefer to have everything in github, but understand concerns
<AZ> You can see the versions, e.g., https://
<AZ> and there, you can compare arbitrary pairs of revisions
TallTed: for me arbitrary version comparisons are important, notifications are as well, I do not see how to get these
<ktk> There is indeed an atom feed: https://
<pfps> I can see changes to wiki pages https://
<ktk> sorry: https://
ktk: I will test what is possible
<gkellogg> https://
gkellogg: gkellogg to move existing wiki entries to the /docs directory
<Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to explain about the dashboard
Action dashboard
pfps: dashbord should contain all actions with filter accordingly
<pfps> all my completed actions should be closed
pfps: the actions mentioned should be clased
ktk: what is the apporach for closing actions in genral?
ora: I trust people if they say that actions are not contraversial
TallTed: I would prefer that the closing is announced here
<pfps> My actions in the main working group repository, #28, #27, #26, and #17, are all complete
<ghurlbot> Action 27 [closed] present a use case process to the working group (on pfps) due 9 Mar 2023
<ghurlbot> Action 28 write a proposal document for a WG process (on pfps) due 16 Mar 2023
<ghurlbot> Action 17 set up tf to get use cases set up (on pfps) due 16 Feb 2023
<ghurlbot> Action 26 send message so that ora and adrian can have the minutes fixed up (on pfps) due 9 Mar 2023
<pfps> close #28
<ghurlbot> Closed action #28
gkellogg: I am concerned that if we announce all closed issues we will waste working group time
<pfps> close #27
<ghurlbot> Closed action #27
<pfps> close #26
<ghurlbot> Closed action #26
<pfps> close #17
<ghurlbot> Closed action #17
<ktk> Issue #31 is done as well, close #31
<ghurlbot> Action 31 chairs to contact I18N group to start discussion (on ktk, rdfguy)
ora: if things are not controversial, we do not need to lose time on that
<ktk> close #31
<ghurlbot> Closed action #31
pfps: there should be a place where we can all look up which issues are closed, this information should at least be visible till a next meeting
TallTed: I really just want small announcements, such that we can see them in the minutes
pfps: we can also add them all in the agenda if we completed them, then they show up
Formal creation of task forces:
pchampin: We can create task forces, but these need to be created officially, we have 3 task forces: editors, use cases and semantics
<pfps> sounds good to me
<Souri> +1
RESOLUTION: formally establish task forces for Editors, Use Cases, and Semantics
<gkellogg> +
+1
<gkellogg> +1
<AndyS> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<ora> +1
ora: what does it mean in practice?
pchampin: I will create task forces
ACTION: pchampin, create the task forces: Editors, Use Cases, Semantics
<pchampin> gkellogg's proposed agenda item: https://
Handling pending PRs
gkellogg: last week we discussed to tag open issues, it happened, but we are now waiting, can we discuss that now?
<gkellogg> w3c/rdf-concepts#16
<ghurlbot> Pull Request 16 Security considerations (gkellogg) spec:enhancement
ora: what is open?
gkellogg: instructions for editors to what they can proceed on and what requires discussion
pfps: I agree that we need some sort of process, to know what needs to be done
<AndyS> I have 4 editorial PRs: https://
pchampin: proposal: mark actions as ready to be closed, close in meeting, we can do similar for pull requests, these should be visible before the meeting, if necessary, we discuss them in the meeting
ora: does that mean that normative changes become agenda items?
pchampin: yes
pfps: maybe that is too much of an bottom up process, people should ask the working group and not just create requests
AndyS: I think that is the work of the editors to look over the changes
ora: are you afraid that things are changed without being noticed
pfps: yes, I am afraid that some things get in without consideration
… example: rdf:JSON, that has not been discussed in the working group
… also grammar, what if it is wrong?
… working group should decide how much we look into the grammar and its details
pchampin: rdf:JSON is just an issue marker, it is an open issue, it is not dangerous
TallTed: issue markers are just to get awareness of discussions, but they do by themselves not change documents
AndyS: what can the editors do?
… I have some pull requests and am waiting.
ora: I am also concerned that the process of official approval can hold us back
<pfps> I agree that editorial changes can be made just by the editors.
TallTed: editor's jobs are to put group decisions into group documents, since we have multiple editors, editorial changes can be approved and looked over by the different editors
ora: I think that is a good process
<pfps> My view, however, is that editorial changes should be considered narrowly, i.e., that adding a new section on rdf:JSON is not an editorial change.
gkellogg: I think we should have a process in which changes stay open at least a week, that enables everyone to see what is happening and maybe raise concerns
… issue makers can then be used
… not all discussions need to be done in meetings
ora: I think we already have a good process in place
AndyS: what are group decisions? just things discussed in our meeting?
TallTed: group decisions are also general agreements how we proceed
pfps: there was no process, some things stayed open, we need a way to ask for discussions
TallTed: use e-mail, git, ... and name them
ora: chairs should look into pr's
… till next meeting
<ktk> Souri: can you scribe next week? it's David Chavez in the list but he can't
pchampin: can we agree that things marked as editorial for some time and have so far not lead to discussions can be merged?
<ktk> close #25
<ghurlbot> Closed action #25
<pfps> I'm fine with allowing editorial PRs with no needs discussion labels to be merged
<TallTed> +1
pchampin: discussions should happen outside the meeting if possible
<TallTed> hurrah for `i/`!