12:00:21 RRSAgent has joined #wot 12:00:25 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-irc 12:00:25 Zakim has joined #wot 12:00:31 meeting: WoT-WG/IG 12:01:01 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan, Mahda_Noura 12:01:14 Ege has joined #wot 12:01:17 https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/pull/438 12:03:12 i|https|topic: Agenda| 12:03:26 ek: Twitter page is broken 12:03:36 ... discussion may become long 12:03:56 kaz: suggest we talk about that (Twitter issue) and IIWoT topic after the policy discussion 12:04:10 present+ Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster 12:04:39 luca_barbato has joined #wot 12:05:00 ktoumura has joined #wot 12:05:11 present+ Luca_Barbato 12:05:37 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:05:42 Also https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1126/files can be added to maybe TPAC outcomes? 12:05:46 Mizushima has joined #wot 12:06:21 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#September_27.2C_2023 12:06:37 topic: Scribe 12:06:48 mm: 2 hours call today, so need two scribes 12:06:58 ... Ege for the first hour and Koster for the 2nd hour 12:07:20 ktoumura_ has joined #wot 12:07:27 yes 12:07:33 topic: Minute Review 12:07:41 mjk has joined #wot 12:07:45 i/Twitter page/scribenick: kaz/ 12:07:49 scribenick: Ege 12:07:53 -> @@@ 12:08:16 mm: I would like to approve, any objections? 12:08:30 sebastian has joined #wot 12:08:51 s|https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Thing_Description_WebConf#September_27.2C_2023|https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#27_September_2023| 12:08:54 q+ 12:09:01 topic: Quick Updates 12:09:06 subtopic: IIWoT 12:09:16 s|@@@|https://www.w3.org/2023/09/20-wot-minutes.html Sep-20| 12:09:24 q? 12:09:29 mm: they only want full papers. If anyone wants to submit, please let us know to coordinate 12:09:40 dezell has joined #wot 12:09:47 present+ David_Ezell 12:10:10 kaz: it would be good to understand the relationship between such events and us 12:10:55 present+ David_Ezell 12:10:58 mm: wot is not trademarked, so anyone can hold such events. It is good to mention these events at least 12:11:08 present+ Sebastian_Kaebisch 12:11:12 kaz: let's continue on the email thread 12:11:12 rrsagent, make log public 12:11:17 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:11:18 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:11:25 cris_ has joined #wot 12:11:29 ack k 12:11:30 topic: Policies 12:11:42 chair: McCool/Sebastian 12:11:49 mm: people had time to review them. I have sent an email about them as well 12:12:01 q+ 12:12:03 mm: If there are no comments in the PR, we can quickly ask in the meeting and then merge 12:12:11 q? 12:12:28 q- 12:12:34 subtopic: Asynchronous Decision Policy 12:12:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:12:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:13:18 kaz: Discussion on asynchronous decision policy should be done synchronously 12:13:32 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi 12:13:33 q? 12:13:55 s/policy/policy itself/ 12:14:24 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/proposals/policies/async-decision.md async-decision.md 12:14:50 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1127 PR 1127 - [Policy] Move async-decision.md from "proposals" to "policies" 12:15:34 ek: had discussion with Koster and Kaz, and concerned if the proposer who created a Pullrequest wouldn't participate in the discussion after the Pullrequest creation 12:15:51 mm: you have a comment ege 12:15:55 mm: the proposer is tasked to participate in the discussion continuously 12:16:01 +1 12:16:07 ek: yes it would be better if people join the meeting if they start a discussion 12:16:52 mm: it would be better to not have an introduction, it is a bit too verbose 12:18:09 q+ 12:18:11 q+ 12:18:15 ek: I am fine to remove the introduction 12:18:25 mm: I can add your comment to the file 12:19:08 ack seb 12:19:17 sk: there should be no overvoting, we should have consensus 12:19:22 present+ Daniel_Peintner 12:19:26 q+ 12:19:30 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:19:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:21:17 mm: we can add it here 12:21:44 sk: so if an editor objects something, we should discuss in a meeting 12:22:28 q+ 12:23:28 (discussion on what "consensus" means, "Editors' consensus" or "Everybody' consensus") 12:23:30 mm: it is ambiguous who makes the decision 12:23:54 mm: we can add to mention "task force members" 12:24:13 dlehn1 has joined #wot 12:24:58 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:24:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:25:35 ek: we should reflect this in the other places 12:25:42 kaz: several questions on this policy. This assumes we can start with any PR without prior discussion 12:26:05 ... we should discuss, make pr and discuss on merging 12:26:36 mahda-noura has joined #wot 12:26:43 ... it says: "if there is a difficult with reaching consensus, we should have a teleconference." This is a bit dangeours 12:27:01 mm: this mechanism is mostly for small/trivial things 12:27:12 present+ Mahda_Noura 12:27:25 s/it says/also it says/ 12:27:34 kaz: having less and shorter meetings is good but we should be careful with the policy 12:27:50 ack k 12:27:51 mm: we can add something like "each PR should have an issue linked to it" 12:29:09 q+ 12:29:11 ca: sometimes it is better to have a PR with examples since you need to show something concrete 12:29:21 ack cris 12:29:29 q+ 12:29:33 ack mi 12:29:35 mm: I am fine as long as it is documented in github 12:29:51 tm: I have same opinion as Kaz 12:30:23 q+ 12:31:31 mm: we can add to say that an issue should be created and used for consensus reaching 12:31:53 ... but this can block progress since it may not be clear until a PR is created 12:32:38 kaz: PR is good to see diff etc. but that is a tool to change the spec. We should have discussions 12:32:57 ack k 12:33:02 kaz: in which cases do we need a PR instead of email, meeting or issue to have a discussion 12:33:22 ca: what we are afraid of is, what if editors change the spec without consensus 12:33:59 q? 12:34:02 ack c 12:34:09 ... we can suggest an issue before and we can also say that we require a minimum time for the PR to be online 12:34:22 q+ 12:34:45 mm: yeah theoritically one can create issue and then a PR and merge it in the same day 12:34:51 ... we should add a time limit 12:35:17 sk: we already have issues before PRs, generally 12:35:25 ... we should be clear why we are doing this 12:35:36 ... we are not perfect in that regard, we are quite slow 12:35:49 q+ 12:35:54 ack seb 12:36:47 ... big topics like canonicalization should be discussed in a meeting anyways 12:37:13 q+ 12:37:25 qq+ McCool 12:37:33 dape has joined #wot 12:37:41 ack McCool 12:37:41 McCool, you wanted to react to sebastian 12:37:50 q- McCool 12:37:51 mm: we should distinguish big changes. Like editors identifying such big changes 12:37:54 q+ 12:38:07 q+ 12:38:14 ack lu 12:38:40 lb: we should have a timeout, what if no one comments on the PR? 12:38:55 ... should we agree to look at the PRs, like at least once a week? 12:39:20 ... the main point is to make the progress smoother 12:40:03 mm: editors should do that 12:41:16 q+ 12:41:47 kaz: We should also clarify which are the necessary to work on. Like what are based on use cases and requirements 12:42:08 ack k 12:42:24 qq+ 12:42:25 mm: we should not mix prioritisation with the process 12:42:40 ... we should give priority to certain topics of course 12:43:44 ack k 12:43:44 kaz, you wanted to react to kaz 12:43:51 kaz: @@@ 12:45:00 s/@@@/I'm not suggesting we mix prioritization with the process, but encouraging you all to see if the target topic (Pullrequest and Issue) is really required from the viewpoint of use cases and requirements./ 12:45:09 ack e 12:45:31 ek: we were already asking for decisions or discussions before, some PRs to TD were rejected due to that 12:45:49 s/and requirements./and requirements before creating a Pullrequest./ 12:46:05 ca: We have narrowed it trivial changes but it should not only be that 12:47:03 ca: I agree with Kaz that we should have some time like 1 week, even if all editors agree. This would allow others to comment 12:47:58 ek: editorial changes section is just above 12:48:01 mm: let's move some these up 12:49:47 mm: (rearranges the text) 12:50:06 ... I will also add that other members can contest the label 12:50:11 +1 12:50:16 s/We should also clarify which are the necessary/It sound to me that we're mixing up the spec generation timeline issue and how to propose changes. If sometimes discussion takes long, that's fine, if it's an important feature. We should also clarify which are the necessary/ 12:50:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:50:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:50:45 q+ 12:50:57 ack c 12:50:58 ack c 12:51:00 ack m 12:51:30 q+ 12:54:20 ack e 12:54:31 ek: One editor can make the changes right? 12:54:38 mm: yes, as long as you wait one week 12:55:22 q? 12:57:28 mm: review can start after labeling 12:57:44 q+ 12:58:26 q- later 12:58:37 ca: I agree that labeling needs to be reviewed 12:59:33 ca: I think after editors approving, the week starts 13:00:32 q+ 13:01:01 ack c 13:01:18 ca: people may not know that the PR is ready 13:01:34 ack e 13:03:27 ek: what if all PRs are drafts until the label 13:03:35 mm: that makes it difficult to understand real drafts 13:03:38 ek: or labels 13:03:42 mm: that complicates it too much 13:04:04 mm: without label is also a state 13:04:11 ek: yes I agree, sounds good 13:06:03 +1 13:06:06 q? 13:06:39 -> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/375 wot wg charter review 13:07:35 -> https://github.com/w3c/strategy/blob/main/4.Chartering.md 4.Chartering.md 13:07:55 +1 for creating a template 13:08:38 kaz: we should have use case for the basis of the need 13:09:17 mm: I can add this is as a note 13:09:33 q+ to inform about Github bots 13:09:41 ack k 13:09:48 q+ 13:09:59 qq+ 13:10:13 kaz: @@1 13:10:29 mm: we can let reviews on the final policy 13:11:03 s/@@1/also we should clarify the relationship between the GitHub discussion and the meeting discussion./ 13:11:10 ++1 for bots 13:11:12 q- later 13:11:17 ack d 13:11:17 dape, you wanted to inform about Github bots 13:11:20 dp: we can use bots to make the process smoother 13:11:23 +1 to daniel 13:12:04 s/+1 to/ege: +1 to/ 13:12:11 ack c 13:12:21 ca: it would be nicer if we include async discussions to policy changes 13:13:09 mm: this is about specifications, so let me add it to the title 13:14:31 i/this is/kaz: @@2/ 13:15:42 s/@@2/can understand what Daniel and Cristiano mean, and so I also mentioned the mechanism for the group Chartering. However, if we really want to go for that direction, we need to clarify the relationship between the GitHub discussion and Telco discussion, etc./ 13:16:22 s/, etc./, also template for the GitHub Issues and Pullrequests. So I'd agree with McCool, we need more discussion about this./ 13:16:38 scribenick: mjk 13:17:06 topic: chair decision policy PR 13:17:21 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/proposals/policies/chair-decision-process.md chair-decision-process.md 13:17:22 mm: we need to make a list of which things chairs can decide 13:17:53 i|we need|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1128 PR 1128 - [Policy] Move chair-decision-process.md from "proposals" to "policies"| 13:18:11 q+ about IG WG distinction 13:18:22 q+ to IG WG distinction 13:18:25 mm: the chairs meeting should be no more than one day before the main call 13:18:27 q- 13:19:07 mm: there is a quorum of two chairs to make a decision 13:19:43 q+ 13:19:44 ack e 13:19:45 Ege, you wanted to IG WG distinction 13:19:52 mm: any comments about this policy? 13:20:31 ege: is this for IG and WG? 13:20:45 mm: this applies only to WG at this point 13:22:07 ege: clarify the point of rejecting unsolicited IE appliocations 13:22:20 s/appliocations/applications 13:22:59 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:23:00 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:23:15 mm: it's technically the job of chairs to ask for IE participation, there is no allowance for unsolicited IE applications 13:23:21 q? 13:23:29 mm: any objections to this policy? 13:24:17 kaz: since the main call is for IG and WG, this policy should apply to both 13:24:37 mm: we could define a separate policy for the IG 13:25:00 kaz: we should separate the consensus part from the voting part 13:25:17 mm: voting is only for emergencies 13:26:50 kaz: the point is that the policy is still consensus based 13:29:12 kaz: suggest that the team contact should get involved to help with reaching consensus 13:29:48 -> https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20230612/#Votes W3C Process Document - 5.2.3 Deciding by Vote 13:31:20 q+ 13:32:05 kaz: we should be very careful about "voting" like the W3C Process Document says 13:33:29 mm: does anyone object to merging this PR now? 13:33:37 ack k 13:33:40 q+ 13:34:23 seb: +1 to merging the PR; we have been operating by consensus for years and this is not likely to be a problem 13:34:23 ack s 13:34:45 kaz: we should not mention the details about voting 13:35:21 q- 13:35:30 mm: 2 out of 3 is more about quorum 13:36:21 mm: since there is an objection, we should ask for suggested changes 13:36:23 s/voting/voting, given the target topic is only about the IE application at the moment./ 13:36:58 topic: twitter account issue with API changes 13:37:00 https://www.w3.org/WoT/ 13:37:29 i|www|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/pull/438 wot-marketing PR 438 - Trying different Twitter/X integration| 13:38:22 mm: it seems like the bug doesn't show up everywhere 13:38:47 (works from Canada, but not from Germany) 13:39:08 mm: maybe it will stabilize in a day or 2 13:39:26 q+ 13:39:29 mm: we should wait before making changes 13:40:26 kaz: let's look into the problem more to understand what is broken 13:40:28 ack k 13:41:20 topic: schedule changes 13:41:36 mm: wanted to make decisions about upcoming changes 13:41:39 q+ to mention marketing cancelled 13:41:44 i|wanted|-> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Cancellations_and_Schedule_Updates Cancellations| 13:41:57 ... next Tuesday is a holiday in DE 13:42:30 ... who is not planning to be available? 13:42:50 mm: We will not cancel then 13:43:13 mm: next is October 9th 13:43:45 ... cancelling Scripting, Discovery, Security on Oct. 9th 13:44:01 sorry, I need to go. bye 13:44:19 mm: November 23, Thanksgiving in US 13:44:26 s/sorry, I need to go. bye// 13:44:36 ... December 25 13:44:51 ... January 1,2,3 13:44:55 ... any objections? 13:45:19 ege: Marketing call October 3rd is cancelled 13:45:59 mm: will go to the calendar and cancel these dates 13:46:47 mm: publication schedule review, please get testimonials done 13:47:09 ... expect to have a resolution to publish next week 13:47:19 ... publication October 5th 13:47:21 q+ 13:47:31 ack e 13:47:31 Ege, you wanted to mention marketing cancelled 13:47:38 ack k 13:47:45 q+ 13:47:50 kaz: to meet that schedule, we also need implementation reports 13:48:03 topic: charter review 13:48:42 kaz: we still need to send a confirmation message to the reviewers and wait until October 2nd 13:48:55 ... the next charter will start on October 3rd 13:49:22 s/need to/had to/ 13:49:25 topic: Proposed Recommendations 13:49:56 s/ and wait/ and I've already sent the message. However, we need to wait/ 13:50:04 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:50:05 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:50:24 mm: has the TD draft been finalized yet? Is the rec document finalized? 13:50:26 s/implementation reports/specs and implementation reports/ 13:50:49 ege: the static version isn't rendered yet, Kaz will do that 13:50:51 q+ 13:51:06 ege: index.html has all PRs merged 13:51:51 kaz: Ege can make the static version and Kaz will check 13:52:14 mm: also need to create static versions for the other documents 13:52:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:52:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:52:35 ... discovery and architecture 13:52:54 s/mm: also/kaz: also/ 13:52:56 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:52:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:53:26 topic: Implementation report - interoperability testing 13:53:42 mm: how do we work this into the document? 13:54:51 ... there used to be a matrix table 13:55:46 ... could we add an explanation that we are doing interoperability testing at our plugtests 13:56:02 s/.../kaz: 13:56:29 s/could we/we could 13:57:06 mm: do we need to link to plugtests? 13:57:43 mm: where does it go? it could go in the out of scope section 13:58:09 mm: does anyone disagree with the wording on screen? 13:58:28 kaz: could link to the plugtest and testing events 13:58:34 https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/tree/main/events 13:58:53 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:58:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:00:26 gkellogg has joined #wot 14:00:26 topic: resource publication 14:00:42 mm: need a few minutes to get this out of the way 14:01:14 mm: need a way to preserve the resource files so they don't get accidentally modified 14:01:42 mm: best would be copies into a repo where they are frozen 14:02:14 mm: the file names need to be constructed to describe content types 14:02:50 mm: the TD resources are using github URLs and need to use W3C URLs 14:03:11 ... how can we get this done? 14:03:59 q+ 14:04:11 mm: ready to do this for the discovery documents, hoping we can do this for TD also 14:04:29 q- later 14:04:37 ... can we make a resolution to publish resources on October 4th 14:05:06 ege: we have the PRs ready for resources but the structure is different 14:05:27 ... we would use the publication directory for staging 14:05:54 mm: we would rather use a separate directory for staging and a new repository 14:06:17 ... wot-resources repository 14:06:37 ... needs to be done by October 4th to publish by the 5th 14:06:44 TallTed has joined #wot 14:07:11 ege: we would only use the publication directory for temporary use 14:07:33 kaz: we should not use the publication directory for stable resources 14:08:00 mm: we are OK using the publication directory for staging 14:08:13 kaz: if just for one week or so 14:08:37 q+ 14:08:41 ack e 14:08:49 mm: will Kaz create a wot-resources repository? 14:09:11 ... then the TFs will create PRs against that repo 14:09:48 proposal: Use subdirectory under "publications" in each repo only for staging, but then copy to a special repo, wot-resources, which Kaz will create immediately. 14:10:30 proposal: Use subdirectory under "publications" in each repo only for staging, but then copy resources to a special repo, wot-resources, which Kaz will create immediately, and which will be used for actual publication of the resources. 14:11:17 resolution: Use subdirectory under "publications" in each repo only for staging, but then copy resources to a special repo, wot-resources, which Kaz will create immediately, and which will be used for actual publication of the resources. 14:11:37 (Kaz has just created "wot-resoureces" repo, and adding the Chairs and Editors to the Team for it) 14:11:52 mm: resolved, will create an email for one week review 14:12:12 q+ 14:13:07 kaz: please record which part of the minutes have been reviewed 14:13:20 mm: still need the review from TD TF 14:13:23 mm: AOB? 14:13:34 ... adjourned 14:13:49 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:13:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/27-wot-minutes.html kaz 14:14:46 exit 15:38:38 gkellogg has joined #wot 15:42:13 gkellogg has joined #wot 15:44:18 gkellogg_ has joined #wot 15:51:31 Mizushima has left #wot 15:51:39 bkardell_ has joined #wot 16:02:23 gkellogg has joined #wot 16:04:43 gkellogg_ has joined #wot 16:10:26 gkellogg_ has joined #wot 16:10:59 gkellogg has joined #wot 16:11:19 gkellogg has joined #wot 16:20:21 Zakim has left #wot 16:45:20 gkellogg has joined #wot 17:04:38 gkellogg has joined #wot 17:28:00 gkellogg has joined #wot