Meeting minutes
agenda planning
Kaz: suggest defer PR merging and discussion
Sebastian: agree, let's try to avoid deep diving on technical matters
Sebastian: also we need to arrange the agenda so topics are scheduled when people are available
<sebastian> https://
Ege: also want to mention we have been working on some slides for some topics, see: https://
McCool: suggest we should not be shy about giving people homework if necessary also
Sebastian: (shows first draft of agenda)
… today, at least scan PRs; talk about "working mode" and timeline; wed, versioning, TD topics, Bindings; Thurs, discovery, liaisons; Friday, profile
McCool: suggest adding policy discussion
Ege: want to understand goal of this week
… is the goal to edit the details doc, or something else?
Sebastian: goal is to decide how the group will run during the new charter
… for example, how many meetings, what task forces and which topics in each, and so forth
… would like to optimize our work
… would like to improve the process itself
… for example, are proposals to use github more for decisions
… also, we have a long list of topics and features, we need to prioritize
… also need to work on policy of who makes decisions, who merges PRs, etc.
Kaz: basically agree, but working mode and timeline can be discussed at the conclusion of this meeting
… think that should be moved to Friday as "next steps"
… also, policy discussion is very important
McCool: also think we need to discuss how to deal with requirements and use cases
Kaz: use cases might be easier than policies, so suggest doing that first
Sebastian: so enough for today, let's get started
McCool: for policies, suggest wot versioning, async decision making, public communication, as a start
Sebastian: how much time will TD and binding take?
Ege: are a number of topics in slides and work items
… two hours should be enough if we avoid deep diving and look at priorities
Sebastian: would give an overview of intended features, and possibly amount of effort, and prioritize
McCool: working on requirements will help us prioritize
Sebastian: so think two hours is enough for TD/Binding; some discussion may have to wait until Friday, e.g. interaction of Profile and TD via defaults
McCool: think we do Liaisons first on Thursday
Kaz: liaisons should be focused on need for W3C; probably need at least 1h
Sebastian: any topics to share?
Kaz: yes, digital twin interest group being launched, we need to also talk about other W3C groups we need to work with
Kaz: don't we need to talk about Arch?
Sebastian: let's do that on Friday
Sebastian: ben, you prepared some slides for profile, how much time do you need?
… and for arch?
McCool: I can do; 30m enough
Charter PR cleanup
<kaz> Remaining PRs on wot-charter-drafts
Sebastian: we still have 14 open
… some belong to profile discussion
McCool: suggest we just call out the ones that need more discussion and merge the rest
… and 92 and 93 are two options, so need to pick
McCool: I was talking about PR numbers
Sebastian: ok, let's go through them to make sure
PR 94
<kaz> PR 94 - Diagram of high-level relationships between WoT documents
Sebastian: PR 94 is nice chart
… ok to merge?
McCool: yes, and let's not get too hung up on small issues, this is only a first draft, and also work items are only provisional
Sebastian: merged
PR 90
Sebastian: PR 90
<kaz> PR 90 - Reword updated profiling mechanism details
Ben: probably superceded by 92 and 93
Sebastian: ok, let's discuss it when we discuss those
PR 86
<kaz> PR 86 - Remove normative deliverable mention from bindings
Sebastian: PR 86
… is typo, removed mention of normative deliverable for binding
<sebastian> w3c/
Sebastian: merged
PR 78
<kaz> PR 78 - Define Streaming and RTSP work items in Details
Sebastian: PR 78
… just additional detail on streaming and RTSP
McCool: is provisional, but suggests RTSP as a place to start for streaming
Sebastian: and discussion?
Luca: like idea, but word of warning, RTSP is a big rabbit hole
McCool: streaming generally, or just RTSP?
Luca: streaming generally, WebRTC raises similar problems
… concern is that it will take a lot of time
McCool: think we want to do the minimal amount to support
Luca: problem is there is a distinction between control and data plan
McCool: suggest we merge but later on figure out how much time it will take and the priority, and include the time needed in our planning
Kaz: PR itself is ok, but we should not talk about specifics today
… should think about specific use cases
… later
PR 77
<kaz> PR 77 - Expand description of Onboarding in Details
Sebastian: PR 77
McCool: this was expanding the definition of onboarding, as requested
… think we need to defer discussion of where it goes
PR 18
<kaz> PR 18 - Replace "Modbus" in CoAP Protocol Binding section
Sebastian: PR 18
… this was a typo fix, Modbus mentioned by accident under CoAP (cut-and-paste error)
… merged
Sebastian: should we look at issues?
Issues
Issue 115
<kaz> Issue 115 - Move Detailed planning to wot repo
McCool: should we move to new repo first?
Other issues
McCool: some of these also related to specific deliverables, e.g. TD, so we can discussion
… suggest Ege goes through these in TD session
Sebastian: what about security?
McCool: let's do security during Arch session, since it is related (e.g. where to put normative security content)
<sebastian> w3c/
McCool: agree protocol binding terminology is confusing
Ben: are two proposals on the table right now, but won't be able to attend, so will comment now
… depending on which direction we take, may need to rename some documents, also relates to how profiles and bindings relate to each other
Sebastian: one proposal was to merge bindings into TD doc as well
… but I think Ege will discuss tomorrow
Sebastian: that seems to be all the issues
Kaz: suggest we add levels to the issues, e.g. cross-referencing to agenda
Sebastian: will do after meeting
… issue 14 can be discussed later during regular TD call
Kaz: suggest we quickly categorize all the remaining issues and record it here on the minutes then (so that you can add labels later easily :)
(McCool quickly categorize the issues)
McCool: 115 - org; 114 - org; 112 - org; 80 - Profile; 59 - TD; 57 - TD; 25 - Liaison/org; 15 - Arch; 14 - Bindings
Use cases and requirements
McCool: there are 2 choices, top-down or bottom-up, suggest bottom-up approach with each work item
McCool: we need to be able to say how the requirements were satisfied by the work items
McCool: we need to justify each work item
Ben: suggest that each specification have a requirements document
… to make the scope and contents clear for each spec
… these should be living documents
… the existing UCR is too high level and broad
Ege: second Ben's points
… there is an issue of document management and an issue of how to satisfy the requirements in the document
McCool: second the idea of requirements for each document
… we could separate use case as a general document and have requirements for each specification
… for example, we need to add use cases for streaming
… agree that it needs to be a living document that adds PRs as needed
… we have some obvious use cases that aren't documented
Kaz: agree with these points, but remember that the use case should reflect the industry needs
… it should describe the industry scenarios and what is needed across industry
… then technical requirements should be extracted
McCool: bottom-up doesn't mean leading with features, but keeping them in context of use cases
… we should have justification for each feature
Kaz: we should be very clear about the policy and procedure
Sebastian: the use case document is more targeted to management, but not where we justify features
McCool: use cases should be base on scenarios and not predict features
… a use case may need a set of many features
Kaz: agree
Luca: we should go through the full cycle including test cases to insure we don't diverge from the target
McCool: we should restart the use case meeting and focus on the process
… let's work on one requirements as a prototype of the process
… maybe some of us who are free this summer could work on this
Sebastian: do we continue the current mode and update the current document?
McCool: we need more discussion
… and come back to the main call
Kaz: we have some consensus and can proceed during the use case call
McCool: we could start at the beginning of the new charter
Kaz: we will need someone to moderate these calls
McCool: can do the first, and discuss who can take over
Sebastian: can also discuss on Friday
policy discussion
McCool: let's first brainstorm which policies to discuss
… there is a document we can review
… starting with the roles of the proposed 3 chairs and has a list of policies
… one item is the decision process
… there is a proposal in the document for the decision process with 3 chairs
… another item is how to choose editors
… can a chair be an editor?
Kaz: for today, we should think about the broader whole group policies
… for example, how and when to bring CG proposals to the use case document
McCool: which decisions require group decisions vs. chairs
… we could make a list of things the chairs could decide without group involvement
… policies for choosing chairs and for resolutions
… need to be reviewed in the discussion
Sebastian: which point should we discuss today?
Asynchronous Review Process
<Ege> wot PR 1005 - Asynchronous Review Process for Specification Changes
McCool: let's start with the async decision process
… since Ben is here to discuss
Ben: I have a proposal for how to use github t oget to merging PRs without requiring group consensus in face to face meetings
… except for controversial PRs
McCool: how do we decide what is controversial?
Ben: we can use the code review tools on github
McCool: if there are no objections, we could merge PRs
Ben: also for non-normative changes we could have an editor approval
… subject to allowing anyone to object, which would trigger a group discussion
McCool: normative changes are those that include assertions, which is difficult to automate
… we could have a flat 2 week waiting period policy
Kaz: concerned that some of the participants could have a problem with a completely offline process. We need some discussion in the calls
McCool: they could file an objection to trigger the discussion
… it should be easier for those in different time zones
Kaz: there could be a comment indicating that a particular PR needs more discussion
McCool: there could be a policy requiring objectors to attend the discussion in person
Sebastian: agree with Kaz concern, but we could have more explanation in writing that gives people more time to study the PR
… it should be fair to everyone
Mizushima: it is important to preserve the consensus process
McCool: we need a concrete policy that we can discuss
<benfrancis> w3c/
McCool: also need a leader to drive the policy discussion
Ege: will there be one policy for all documents
… maybe people still disagree on what the problem is, so we should document the problem
McCool: there should be a consistent policy for all TF unless there is a really good reason
Ege: there could be issues with a complex document like TD
McCool: there may be some special cases
Next steps
Sebastian: next steps? the chairs could prepare policy proposals
McCool: we already have Ben's proposal for the async process, and can have chairs drive the others
<Ege> regarding public communications, there is some in marketing https://
McCool: we should clarify this before the new charter starts
Sebastian: available for the next 2 weeks
McCool: we have a document to guide this process
Agenda check
Sebastian: agenda check, we are done with today's topics
Sebastian: next meeting tomorrow we will focus on TD and bindings
Kaz: please capture the agenda topics to the wiki and publish these slides
Ben: want to point out that there are no good time slots for everyone
… volunteer to chair the profile meetings and can discuss on Friday
McCool: tomorrow we plan to have a main call, do we need resolutions?
Kaz: we don't need resolutions
McCool: let's have a short main call to decide if we need a main call
Kaz: let's have a progress check before we start the TD topics
… that can be the first part of the planning meeting
Sebastian: any other comments? AOB?
… adjourned