Meeting minutes
Minutes
https://
Sebastian: new policy, will not going into details, chairs have reviewed and fixed some issues already
<kaz> proposed policy for minutes review
Kaz: do need to let people know where drafts are
McCool: indeed, and also the minutes policy is still only "proposed", so let's scan them quickly
Sebastian: any objections to publish?
Sebastian: no objections, publish
McCool: let's also see if we can make that minutes policy official, starting with finishing the draft PR, then a CfR...
Quick updates
Sebastian: none
Upcoming events and schedule changes
Sebastian: some vacations, etc. documented on the wiki
… also public holidays in Japan, e.g. Obon
Sebastian: let's discuss cancelling that week
… in mid-August
McCool: let's indicate that Security and Discovery are not cancelled
Sebastian: also note, Security call will be moving starting the week after next
… to address a conflict that Mahda has
Charter
Sebastian: regarding review status, any news?
… I have not heard if we are in AC review yet
Calendar
Ege: meeting in W3C schedule changes - revisited expiring, we need to update them
McCool: yes, true, I will fix
Cristiano: scripting may also have some cancellations also
Sebastian: ok, let me document that
Cristiano: last three weeks of august, scripting will be cancelled,
Kaz: need to clarify who to update the calendar
McCool: anyway, I will fix the calendar, and will add task leaders as organizers
WG Charter - revisited
Sebastian: back to charter status...
Kaz: still working with Marcomm team on AC review request; will send out this week
… but charter request is approved
TPAC Planning
<kaz> TPAC page
<kaz> WoT agenda
Sebastian: registration is open
… is hybrid call; original hotel is full, but they have more rooms in another hotel
… or rather, some recommendations
Kaz: I will be staying at a nearby hotel
Sebastian: need to look more at agenda
… some news on JSON-LD
Ege: topics are relevant to the group and community, including VC, other related tech
… JSON-LD CG will not be meeting, but we can use their CG slot
… but Manu mentioned RCH will be meeting and covers some of these topics
… have asked how many people are interested
… could join coffee break to set exact time; but would rather arrange in advance
Ege: I am currently trying to find the appropriate email, etc.
Kaz: their proposed time is Monday morning, which I cannot join
… an alternative would be to have a dedicated call before or after TPAC
Ege: I also have a conflict Monday with WebAgents
McCool: should we not just ask them to join in one of our slots?
Ege: would prefer to meet during TPAC
Kaz: who would join?
Ege: there are a number of other slots proposed, still working on it
Kaz: should also see who can join on Monday...
<Ege> https://
McCool: Monday is off the table?
Ege: no, not completely, only half the day
Kaz: need to see who from our side would join as well
McCool: need to send around a list of all the alternatives and see who can make each one
Ege: there is a list in the wiki, but there are other conflicts
<Ege> https://
Ege: currently the Monday slot is the proposal
… still not finalized, however
Sebastian: won't have a perfect slot, but in favor of a F2F meeting
… we can follow up with another meeting afterwards
Kaz: better if the "official" discussion is after, but F2F meeting can be "casual"
… just because not all WoT WG members can attend
Sebastian: what about SDW and Privacy?
McCool: I think both will happen after TPAC in scheduled calls
McCool: will also double-check a11y slot, thurs at 1730
Sebastian: what about MEIG?
Kaz: joint meeting makes sense, but no specific times
McCool: suggest we schedule a "use-case" session, invite appropriate groups to it, including MEIG
Sebastian: adds "Use Cases" to topics list
McCool: now we need to decide some times for things
Sebastian: suggest we put agenda at the top where it is easy to find
McCool: suggest you throw something together, next week we can look at it and refine
Publications
Sebastian: have 8-10 "supports" for each publication, 1 fix for "non-support" possible, so need about 10 more
Sebastian: regarding the fix, there is a PR
… but we do have proof that it is implemented
Kaz: there is a process issue; will have to talk with PLH
Kaz: create a PR, but please do not merge it, wait until get confirmation from PLH
<sebastian> w3c/
McCool: generally be careful, changes to the PR->REC at this stage need external approvals
Kaz: at this stage, we should not be adding any updates to any deliverable, unless there is a fatal problem
Sebastian: please ping your AC reps to get more votes
… there are many WG members still missing
Sebastian: any other news on publications?
Kaz: 2 WG Notes still in process
TPAC joint discussion - revisited
Ege: WoT CG, forgot to mention
… for TPAC
… is linked already, should include in schedule
… there is a document in a PR
Ege: generally, will be mornings on Thursday and Friday
Ege: joint call slots are also proposed on WoT WG wiki page
Kaz: having separate CG meetings are good, we should also discuss policies about how to transfer ideas and input from CG to WG
… need to satisfy patent policy, etc.
McCool: we need to document an official policy, but basically people have to agree to patent policy
Cristiano: can go the other way for informal discussion
McCool: that is ok for policy discussion, but for technical input we need to satisfy the patent policy
Kaz: we also need to be fair to those that have paid for membership
Press release
Sebastian: had extended meeting between chairs and marketing TF
… defined main points for press release, focusing on important points
… the draft is in the agenda
… we need also to get feedback from Marcom team, and need to get testimonials
<kaz> schedule.md
<kaz> draft narrative
McCool: summary, 6 weeks, 2 for draft, 2 for CfP, 2 for MarComm review
… need first draft by next week
Kaz: agree
… and would like to confirm that this is very important task as the whole WoT WG
… some smaller group's working on the initial draft would make sense
… like McCool and Koster
… also we need to start to get testimonials
McCool: Koster, let's start to work on this together
Koster: ok
McCool: can start with outline
… people can give comments if anything is missing
… main big points are "why it's important", "what's new?" and "what's the impact?"
… avoiding vendor lock-in
… two big topics for "what's new": TM and Discovery
Ege: should be some sort of relation
… not new but building up based on something
… improvement for something
McCool: good point
McCool: (shows the previous press release)
… we need an updated diagram as well
… something like the narrow-waist picture
Kaz: for all the big points here, specifically, "what's new?", describing what we've done in a "top-down" manner would be important
… easy and automatic generation of the system would be a keyword for that purpose
Koster: right
<Ege> +1 to mjk
Koster: easy/automatic would be good
… also could mention what kind of improvement applied in addition to TM and Discovery
McCool: ok
… Koster and I have to work on that
… regarding testimonials
… bunch of software there
… want to talk about SDOs
… ECHONET, Conexxus, OPC UA, IPA DADC, etc.
… would have testimonials
Ege: what about companies using the technologies who are not Members?
McCool: press release is basically for the Members
… the question is if we need to mention them by name
Ege: any companies working on WoT
McCool: we could generate a draft and ask the W3C Team for review
… you have a list of companies
… possibly 5-6
Kaz: it's odd to mention non-Member companies' names would be odd
… though we can mention SDOs or OSS projects as we did for the previous press release
McCool: yeah, we should be careful
… we mentioned Eclipse within our previous press release
McCool: also, nice to have a page of "users of WoT"
… can point a page as a whole
… let's work on the draft
Kaz: for the next step, please move this draft narrative to the GitHub so that we can continue the discussion
McCool: ok
… is the wot repo ok?
Kaz: yes, that's fine
McCool: we have some basic testimonials on the wot-testing repo
Sebastian: need upper manager's approval
McCool: it's a chicken/egg problem...
… need to get MarComm review
Sebastian: ok
Other topics
Sebastian: need to wrap up so we can do planning
Sebastian: anything from TFs?
McCool: will be covering sec and discovery in planning
Ege: some PRs in TD - group resolutions, also PR/REC issue
Kaz: resolution for TD update - how will we do? can we do that today?
McCool: can we do it via email?
Kaz: email was a little vague, and there was a "fatal" error in assertion text
McCool: should consolidate all changes also
McCool: suggest TD draft a consolidated set of changes, send out an email with a call for resolution, discuss next week, have group resolution in two weeks
McCool: let's lower that to one week for the CfR, that is allowed
Planning
Sebastian: talk about profiles and how to continue
<sebastian> https://
Sebastian: McCool did already some analysis
… it shows how the architecture is related and considered, Sebastian beatified a bit
<kaz> Overview of WoT 2.0 plans
Sebastian: profile discussions and one PR open asynchronous decision making is open
Sebastian: is the PR ready to go age?
Ege: reviews received from McCool and Cris, there is one thing remaining from Sebastian, two editors should approve the PR
… what if two invited experts approve
… who are editors?
<kaz> Decision Policy within the Charter
McCool: we should review this in the chair meetings
… ege should finish his changes, and if it looks good we would merge, and do final approval
RESOLUTION: IE is also included
Kaz: as PLH sent out to the Chairs list, IEs will have identical access permission for Member only information
… so the question is not "whether IEs should have the same right (because they already have the same right) or not, but how to choose IE's
McCool: we need a policy for this
McCool: use case requirements should be discussed today
McCool: uploaded an earlier version to Github, how we handle use case requirements
… we discussed in the security group
… w3c asks from us to have requirements
… and state whether those requirements have been satisified
… we have large numbers of requirements's but do not have use cases, and vice-versus
… the use case often have redundancies
… most often the use cases are technology-dependant
… the correct way is to think of use cases in terms of end users
… there is the use-case document, made various attempts to capture use cases
… but the template is complicated to writing the requirements
… in security TF, we discussed how to deal with use cases and requirements
… in security you have a threat/risks which have to be mitigated
… mitigations are things to do to address risks
… in our security/provacy guidelines the risks are outdated
… identify which use cases have which risks
… we need to have security people go through the use cases and connect the threats, with an external review process
… discovery is more a traditional spec
… geo-location requirements is well-documented
… the plan for discovery is to update the older document
https://
McCool: in-line the requirements's and link the use cases that motivate them
… we should publish the requirements doc in a separate doc
… suggestion to organise the information better, expand the requirements section in the use case or link
… we do not try to put requirements's in the use cases itself
… we don't use necessarily the template, we give the requirements a name, what it is, and link to at least one use case that motivates it
… general requirements supported by sub-requirements
Sebastian: it makes sense to make the references to the requirements
… how should we differentiate, which use case on a purpose
… struggling with: use case is a big picture of the scenario, when we want to implement the features, is a relation to the big picture needed?
McCool: should find general use cases to motivate
Kaz: agree with McCool proposal
… any kind of mechanism which makes the implementation easier should be described technically in the use case
… we should think about refactoring of the specification
… the technical discussion should be managed with the basic procedure, starting with use cases
McCool: ease of use for whom?
Ege: interoperability using MQTT for discovery is weird because there are other protocols meant for it, the pipeline is too generic
McCool: we have some mission statements, supports interoperability is our mission not use case
McCool: this is an example of how to do general requirements, we actually want to support flexible binding mechasnims
Ege: for the TD planning the work items should be separated
… we can present this next time due to time issues
Kaz: agree with McCool proposal, it's rather that we can start with general requirements and then detailed ones
… we need to think about how to formulate the structure
… detailed requirement section should be handled separately
McCool: we should have a draft and look at a concrete example. The use cases in the main document can be considered as high-level
McCool: next week to be discussed
<kaz> [adjourned]
<kaz> (TD call 15mins past the hour)