Meeting minutes
review minutes from November 29th
<kaz> Nov-29
McCool: any comments on the minutes from last week?
McCool: any changes or objections to publish?
… no objections, published
updates
McCool: Nordic smart city meeting again on the 18th, we have a lot of conflicts and would like them to change the schedule if they can.
… in the meantime, we will cancel meetings on the 18th so people can participate
… we should add the Nordic CG to our collaboration list
meeting schedule changes
McCool: only have 2 weeks left to get stuff done this year
… next monday is the last meeting of the year for security, discovery, and scripting
… any other cancellations?
Kaz: next scripting call will be on December 11th, and will be the last meeting of the year for scripting
<kaz> schedule.md
McCool: topic: schedule
… The December 5th publication date is the actual date
… when are the resources published?
Kaz: as I described last week, the redirection was available last week already, and the contents have been updated for Discovery ontology, etc. If we need to mention some exact date, we can simply say "It's available as of Dec 5th also".
… Spec publication is separate from the resource management
McCool: we should be careful about updating resources because they can cause breaking changes
… we should stage and test resources going forward
TD call slot
McCool: doodle was extended, today we can decide
<Ege> https://
Ege: The TD agenda has the result
… The proposal is for the first hour of the current slot on Wednesday and Thursday in the slot 1 hour earlier (9:00 US Eastern time)
… The new schedule will start January 10th
Sebastian: Suggest defining one call for TD and the other call for Binding discussion
… to accommodate people's interests
… we should see which day is better for which topic
McCool: let's pick one and see if we need to change it later
Kaz: it's not necessary to discuss this in the main call, we should discuss in the TD slot
… we can discuss in the TD call first, then report back to the main call
McCool: please record the change in the minutes
planning
McCool: going to defer the policy topic until next year and try to complete the IG charter this year in the last 2 meetings
… we need to figure out project management
… can we get a draft from Ege and Koster?
Ege: we will discuss in the TD call today and report back
… the idea is to split the issues into small pieces and track them using a kanban
… the goal is not make it too complicated but also be able to manage the load
Kaz: there was discussion in the TD call to review what we have been doing so far, as a starting point
McCool: would prefer a group policy and not have different groups doing different things
McCool: TD can set the path and other groups can follow
… also need to deal with consistency of resources
Kaz: We should clarify which policy is being developed and how it will be used in which group
McCool: topic: any news on Open Day?
McCool: we should start planning for the June event
Sebastian: need to scope the event, will we have a plugfest? haw many days?
McCool: incremental cost of more days is not a big deal
Sebastian: Berlin is not expensive
McCool: maybe we can use Siemens facility for the plugfest
task force consolidation
McCool: McCool is too busy running too many TFs
… we need to think about when we will restart architecture and how we will run it
… McCool only has time for 2 roles
Sebastian: we can put out a call for interest in being a lead
McCool: we need a policy for how to get new TF leads
… for security, we need to reach out and maybe tap IEs to get more candidates
Kaz: we should separate the discussion into different topics
… the issue of McCool being busy is separate from needing more leaders
<Mizushima> +1 kaz
Kaz: there are several issues at once and we need to prioritize the TF lead selection policy
Kaz: we may need to consider stopping work on some of these areas
… we don't have time to discuss this today
Daniel: it would be good to list the task forces we have and see who wants to lead which one
publications
RECs
McCool: yesterday we published the RECs
… The implementation report is updated
<kaz> https://
<kaz> https://
<kaz> https://
McCool: still need a PR to update some links within the TD Implementation Report
Press Release
McCool: the Press Release is also published
<kaz> https://
Related resources
<kaz> Discovery setting
<kaz> TD 1.1 setting
<kaz> TD 1.0 setting
McCool: the resource redirections have been set up but there are some issues
… the table needs to be cleaned up
Kaz: we don't need to get into the details in this meeting, should create an issue and discuss in the TD call
McCool: tx for the suggestion. will create an Issue. then looked at generating the HTML for discovery, using the tools used by the TD
… the discovery ontology HTML could be done in the TD area or a separate area
… there could be a common area for this tooling
Ege: there are some problems with the tooling
… we have already duplicated the tooling for binding templates
Ege: some of the tooling is already in a common repository
McCool: so we should follow the pattern from bindings for discovery
McCool: now going to finalize the DID registration
McCool: we should make sure everything is updated to pull from the correct places
Kaz: anyway, we should bring the issues on Discovery to the Discovery TF, and the issues on TD to the TD TF to discuss the details
Other topics
McCool: what about the JP CG
Kaz: waiting for updates
liaisons
Sebastian: OPC UA has an issue about compliance testing, which needs to be done in OPC
… The OPC binding will be developed in OPC and registered using the new registration system
… they will create a new group
Kaz: this is inline with what PLH and myself have been suggesting, also inline with what the TD/Binding TF have been working on.
… it's important to be clear about the requirements for the registration
Sebastian: there is also a good description of the document requirements
… this is a good direction
TF reports
Sebastian: any reports?
Security and Discovery
Sebastian: security and discovery are working on use cases and requirements
… there is a draft of requirements generated from use cases
… and categorized
<dape> https://
Scripting
Daniel: scripting agenda is changed due to the meeting cancellation on the 18th
Use Cases
Kaz: we need to rebuild the Use Case TF
McCool: the TF work is deriving requirements from the use cases
Kaz: we should concentrate on the overall use case work before splitting it into TF discussions. we can't dive into it today because we'll discuss the IG Charter for today, but we need to work on that as the whole WoT WG. Starting the discussion in January is OK by me.
McCool: it's logical to work on requirements before work items
… we could keep the functional requirements in the Use Case TF and work on technical requirements in the specific TF
McCool: TD TF should work on requirements before going further on work items
Kaz: suggest we have a detailed discussion after the new year
McCool: closing the meeting, restart with the IG charter at 15 past
<kaz> [ break til 15 past ]
IG Charter Discussion
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts Issues
<kaz> Draft IG Charter
Koster: here is the IG Charter draft
… not sure why we have highlighting
Kaz: that just means proposed, so we just need to remove it before making it offocial
Chairs
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts PR 136 - Update wot-ig-2023-draft.html
<kaz> approved and merged
Other PRs
McCool: we can start with the easiest
Kaz: probably better to start with the order of the template. If there are really easy topics which could be handled within 5 mins, that's fine. though.
PR 142
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts PR 142 - IG charter participation policy
McCool: sorry for the whitespace diff
McCool: I changed one sentence that implied that we have a spec in ig
<kaz> kaz: the proposed text says "test lead for deliverables", etc., additionally
<kaz> ... we should compare the text with the current IG Charter too
<kaz> Current IG Charter
Ege: no need to have test lead in ig right?
McCool: we can remove it
Koster: ok we can remove
Ege: also weird to mention how much work is needed
McCool: that can be also removed
<kaz> another example of the MEIG Charter
Kaz: we can also look at MEIG charter
<kaz>
To be successful, this Interest Group is expected to have 6 or more
active participants for its duration, including representatives from key
media industries, and active Task Force leaders. The Chairs and Task
Force leaders are expected to contribute half of a working day per week
towards the Interest Group. There is no minimum requirement for other
Participants.
Kaz: we can simply reuse the text from the MEIG Charter, which was recently rechartered
McCool: you can create another issue and pullrequest for that purpose
Lagally: what happens we have less than 6 participants
McCool: it is W3C policy
PR 140
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts PR 140 - IG charter communication policy
McCool: I have mentioned the WoT Homepage and the IG homepage
… not many changes otherwise
McCool: any comments?
Kaz: as the Charter template says, the policy of the W3C as a whole about the URL for groups is using "www.w3.org/groups/ig/wot" as the starting point.
Kaz: better to not have the marketing page
McCool: let's remove
Lagally: what do you mean by public contributions
McCool: it is about having a decision when a non-ig member makes a pull request
… we have allowed it in the past for the use cases
Koster: any objections?
PR 139
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts PR 139 - IG charter decision policy
Koster: any objection?
McCool: this was just copying the same from WG but changing to IG when necessary
Kaz: Note that "the Director" mentioned in the decision policy should be removed, because we don't have the W3C Director any more. That is rather the problem of the Charter template, though.
Scope Section
<kaz> wot-charter-drafts Issue 122 - IG Charter 2023: Update scope
Koster: the last bullet point on "Explore areas" from the "Scope Summary" sounds more like a mission statement
McCool: also the security guidelines might be an ig document
McCool: people should read the issue 122 and comment accordingly
Koster: any other business?
Koster: adjourned