IRC log of wot on 2024-04-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:05:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #wot
12:05:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-irc
12:05:16 [kaz]
meeting: WoT-WG/IG
12:06:27 [mahda]
present+ Mahda_Noura
12:06:33 [kaz]
scribenick: JKRhb
12:06:52 [matsuda]
matsuda has joined #wot
12:07:11 [JKRhb]
topic: Minutes Review
12:07:16 [kaz]
present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Luca_Barbato, Daniel_Peintner, David_Ezell, Ege_Korkan, Jan_ROmann, Kunihiko_Toumura, Luca_Barbato, Tetsushi_Matsuda, Tomoaki_Mizushima
12:07:18 [JKRhb]
mm: Looked at the minutes in the chairs call
12:07:24 [JKRhb]
... didn't see any major issues
12:07:31 [JKRhb]
... fixed a link inbetween
12:07:39 [JKRhb]
... JSON Schema will be discussed today again
12:07:54 [JKRhb]
... resources is still in flux
12:07:59 [JKRhb]
... any objections to publishing?
12:08:10 [JKRhb]
... hearing no objections, minutes are approved
12:08:15 [JKRhb]
topic: Quick Items
12:08:20 [JKRhb]
subtopic: IRC
12:08:32 [JKRhb]
mm: There is a new syntax for indicating the channel in the IRC
12:08:34 [kaz]
i|Looked|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/03/27-wot-minutes.html Mar-27|
12:08:38 [JKRhb]
... you can use it to indicate the channel
12:08:39 [Ege]
q+
12:08:55 [JKRhb]
... for some reason, it still prompts me for my username, which is a bit annoying
12:09:01 [JKRhb]
... there is an email with a complaint
12:09:08 [JKRhb]
ek: Sent a follow-up email to that
12:09:17 [JKRhb]
... you can set a bookmark with the username
12:09:42 [JKRhb]
... that's what I do, it is quite practical
12:10:00 [JKRhb]
mm: (adds a link to the mail to the Wiki)
12:10:13 [JKRhb]
subtopic: Daylight Saving Time
12:10:21 [Tomo]
Tomo has joined #wot
12:10:24 [kaz]
q+
12:10:26 [JKRhb]
mm: We are now back to the old time, as you've noticed, since you are here
12:10:36 [JKRhb]
subtopic: New WoT IG Charter
12:11:02 [JKRhb]
kaz: The extension request got one review so far
12:11:15 [JKRhb]
... they understand that we are outside the original charter period
12:11:30 [JKRhb]
... hopefully, they will approve us today or tomorrow
12:11:39 [kaz]
ack e
12:11:42 [kaz]
ack k
12:11:53 [JKRhb]
... just means that can't publish new documents but discussion can continue
12:12:15 [JKRhb]
mm: The 3 month extension is probably too generous, but it is just to be on the safe side
12:12:20 [JKRhb]
topic: Notices
12:12:26 [JKRhb]
mm: Anything to announce here?
12:12:27 [kaz]
s/one review/one approval/
12:12:30 [JKRhb]
No announcements
12:12:36 [JKRhb]
topic: Meetups
12:12:42 [JKRhb]
subtopic: WoT CG
12:12:57 [JKRhb]
mm: There is a planned meetup regarding WoT and Solid
12:13:06 [JKRhb]
... on May 16
12:13:11 [JKRhb]
... any more updates?
12:13:27 [JKRhb]
ek: There will also be new tutorial videos on the YouTube channel
12:13:32 [JKRhb]
mm: Keep us posted
12:13:38 [JKRhb]
subtopic: WoT JP CG
12:13:49 [JKRhb]
mz: There is nothing to report here
12:14:03 [JKRhb]
topic: Cancellations and Schedule Updates
12:14:14 [JKRhb]
mm: I am going to clean up the list of cancellations
12:14:16 [kaz]
s/here/here, but planning some more events/
12:14:28 [JKRhb]
... next week there are the AC meetings
12:14:31 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
12:14:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:14:40 [JKRhb]
... Kaz is going to travel that week
12:15:02 [JKRhb]
... on April 16 there is going to be another cancellation, will you be available then?
12:15:17 [JKRhb]
... main call is going to be on the 17th
12:15:41 [JKRhb]
kaz: Will be available on the 17th, on the 16th there will be a Japanese Community meeting
12:15:53 [kaz]
s/a J/the J
12:16:00 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
12:16:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:16:16 [JKRhb]
mm: April 22 until April 26, there is going to be the Hannover fair
12:16:39 [kaz]
rrsagent, make log public
12:16:51 [kaz]
chair: McCool
12:17:02 [JKRhb]
mm: As Kaz is not going to be available on April 10, so we are going to cancel the main call
12:17:30 [JKRhb]
mm: The use cases call is going to be cancelled on April 17
12:17:43 [kaz]
s/Jan_ROmann/Jan_Romann/
12:17:45 [JKRhb]
kaz: Yeah, Mizushima-San is not going to be able to make preparations then
12:17:53 [kaz]
present+ Michael_Koster
12:18:13 [JKRhb]
mm: On April 29, the Scripting call is going to be cancelled
12:18:25 [JKRhb]
topic: Schedule
12:18:42 [JKRhb]
mm: Feel free to update the schedule depending on your taskforce planning
12:18:53 [JKRhb]
topic: Publications
12:18:56 [JKRhb]
No updates here
12:18:58 [JKRhb]
topic: JSON Schema
12:19:08 [JKRhb]
mm: There has been an ongoing debate on JSON Schema
12:19:28 [JKRhb]
... JSON Schema is not a standard, but we are using it in our specifications
12:19:33 [JKRhb]
... and for TD validation
12:19:56 [kaz]
chair: McCool, Koster
12:19:56 [JKRhb]
... however, they were recently withdrawing from the IETF and decided to essentially form their own SDO
12:20:01 [kaz]
regrets+ Sebastian
12:20:11 [JKRhb]
... so there was the question whether we can normatively depend on such a specification
12:20:32 [JKRhb]
... I feel that we should formally declare our dependency on JSON Schema so that is not buried under a lot of noise
12:20:33 [Ege]
q+
12:20:35 [dape]
s/On April 29, the Scripting call is going to be cancelled/On April 29, the Scripting TF should decide whether the call is going to be cancelled
12:20:55 [JKRhb]
... and that someone should summarize the current state of the discussion
12:21:08 [JKRhb]
... so the question is whether we should make a statement as a group
12:21:21 [JKRhb]
... or whether we should only respond individually
12:21:36 [kaz]
q+
12:21:43 [JKRhb]
... so I wanted to ask whether someone wants to volunteer to go through this and summarize it for us
12:21:54 [JKRhb]
... want to ask Ege if could do that
12:22:14 [Ege]
https://github.com/orgs/json-schema-org/discussions/671
12:22:22 [JKRhb]
ek: I can write up a summary and I could go to there monthly meetup and present it to them
12:22:44 [JKRhb]
... in the discussion linked above, there is also their process document
12:22:52 [luca_barbato]
q+
12:22:53 [JKRhb]
... I can create a text and share it with the group here
12:22:55 [dezell]
q+
12:23:06 [mjk]
mjk has joined #wot
12:23:16 [JKRhb]
mm: My goal is that W3C understands WoT's position and whether we support this
12:23:39 [JKRhb]
ek: At least I support treating JSON Schema as a normative, referencable document
12:23:43 [mjk7]
mjk7 has joined #wot
12:24:13 [Ege]
also see: https://json-schema.org/blog/posts/w3c-wot-case-study . This was a joint effort with them
12:24:34 [JKRhb]
mm: We should discuss this and make clear that we as a group formed a consensus here. Should draft a resolution and pass it within one week
12:24:41 [mjk7]
mjk7 has left #wot
12:24:43 [mm]
q?
12:24:48 [mm]
ack e
12:24:53 [JKRhb]
ek: Should make it clear publicly that we support them
12:25:10 [JKRhb]
kaz: Wanted to ask you all to summarize our need
12:25:22 [JKRhb]
mm: Let's discuss with the group and make our position clear
12:25:36 [JKRhb]
... Ege can make a draft and we can then discuss it
12:25:50 [JKRhb]
kaz: Decision should be made by the chairs but we can delegate it to Ege
12:26:00 [JKRhb]
... but we can discuss Ege's draft
12:26:10 [kaz]
s/Decision/Summary and decision/
12:26:19 [JKRhb]
mm: Want Ege to draft something which can then agree to as a group
12:26:22 [kaz]
s/draft/draft as the whole WG/
12:26:30 [JKRhb]
... need a written draft to make sure that we are all on the same page
12:26:32 [mm]
ack k
12:26:39 [JKRhb]
kaz: Thank you for volunteering, Ege!
12:26:52 [JKRhb]
lb: Let's think about a worst-case scenario
12:26:52 [kaz]
s/there monthly/their monthly/
12:27:21 [JKRhb]
... if their decision to form an SDO and their published version does not satisfy us
12:27:40 [JKRhb]
mm: We would not be worse off than we are today
12:27:49 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
12:27:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:28:51 [JKRhb]
lb: If they keep evolving their specification but we can pin the version we are referring to as a standard, but if they are keep moving, then we might need to "import" the version we are referring to into our specifications
12:29:26 [JKRhb]
mm: We need JSON Schema for validation, e.g. in the directory service, there are other mechanisms such as JSON-LD
12:29:36 [JKRhb]
... not consistent with industry tooling
12:29:55 [dape]
q+
12:29:57 [mm]
q?
12:29:59 [JKRhb]
... we need to figure out how strong the dependency really is and what we need to cite it
12:30:00 [mm]
ack l
12:30:27 [JKRhb]
david: I chose to be an early reviewer of Ege
12:30:31 [kaz]
ack de
12:30:54 [JKRhb]
... we are relying heavily on JSON Schema, version 7 to be precise
12:31:07 [JKRhb]
... if you ever need help, Ege, just let me know
12:31:28 [JKRhb]
dp: Quick note: I doubt that we are the only ones relying on JSON Schema within W3C
12:31:28 [Ege]
q+ to mention that VC is also reliant on JSON Schema
12:31:39 [JKRhb]
... should coordinate with them
12:31:48 [kaz]
q+
12:31:53 [kaz]
ack dape
12:31:56 [JKRhb]
... and reach out to them and make a common statement to the W3C, across groups
12:32:13 [Ege]
https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-json-schema/
12:32:24 [JKRhb]
mm: I am also think about the web ecosystem, e.g. OpenAPI, for them it is pretty important
12:32:36 [JKRhb]
... also the people from the schemas breakout
12:32:54 [JKRhb]
ek: There is also the Verifiable Credentials WG, which we should involve
12:33:12 [JKRhb]
kaz: I think that's why we are asking Ege to summarize our point
12:33:19 [JKRhb]
topic: F2F Planning
12:33:45 [JKRhb]
mm: June is coming pretty close, when Sebastian returns I hope we can pin down the open questions
12:34:00 [Ege]
ack e
12:34:00 [Zakim]
Ege, you wanted to mention that VC is also reliant on JSON Schema
12:34:07 [kaz]
q-
12:34:17 [kaz]
q+
12:34:24 [JKRhb]
... I added an additional level of approval to the wiki
12:34:46 [JKRhb]
... please fill in the table, so that we have a better idea who will join
12:34:53 [kaz]
q-
12:35:06 [JKRhb]
kaz: I hope to be able to come, but the 90% is conditional, depending on the topics discussed
12:35:17 [JKRhb]
... that is probably also true for you, right?
12:35:30 [JKRhb]
mm: Yes, therefore I hope to finalize the agenda soon
12:35:48 [JKRhb]
... also considering that there are stricter guidelines in place now
12:35:51 [JKRhb]
topic: Versioning
12:35:57 [JKRhb]
mm: We had a meeting last week
12:36:02 [JKRhb]
... walked through the draft policy
12:36:16 [JKRhb]
... as far as I understand, this is the latest version of the prososal
12:36:22 [Ege]
q+
12:36:39 [JKRhb]
... did not make it to a resolution, plan is to spend some more time during tomorrow's TD call and finish it
12:36:45 [kaz]
i|We had|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/pull/1969 draft policy on TD repo|
12:37:15 [JKRhb]
... note that this is in the TD repo for now, but it should also apply to other TFs, so ideally we should move it to the wot repository eventually
12:37:22 [JKRhb]
... this should also affect Profiles
12:37:37 [JKRhb]
lb: Probably depends on what we want to do in Profiles
12:37:51 [JKRhb]
mm: You will probably also have ontologies etc.
12:38:19 [JKRhb]
lb: One of the open questions for Profiles is whether they will insert additional vocabularies
12:38:45 [JKRhb]
... but I read it and I am aware of it, as I am one of the authors
12:39:09 [JKRhb]
ek: One thing: Tomorrow, I would like to focus on the discussion regarding the pre-REC
12:39:25 [JKRhb]
... including the date in the version
12:39:32 [JKRhb]
... then we should have a resolution
12:39:40 [mm]
q?
12:39:43 [mm]
ack e
12:40:07 [JKRhb]
topic: Other TFs
12:40:49 [JKRhb]
mm: We should probably skip this, with the exception of Profiles, since we are short on time. Does anyone want to give an update?
12:41:09 [JKRhb]
s/Profiles/Profile/
12:41:32 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
12:41:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
12:41:40 [JKRhb]
No other updates
12:41:41 [luca_barbato]
https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369
12:41:44 [JKRhb]
subtopic: Profile
12:42:17 [kaz]
s/Other TFs/TF reports/
12:42:19 [JKRhb]
lb: The problem we currently have within Profile is that we this problem that synchronous actions are underspecified
12:42:39 [kaz]
s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369||
12:42:53 [mm]
q+
12:43:01 [kaz]
i|The problem|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/369 wot-profile Issue 369 - Clarifications on async actions|
12:43:04 [kaz]
q+
12:43:26 [JKRhb]
... in Profile we are facing the issue that since it is underspecified in TD, we have Profiles that specify what should happen in such a case, which is not covered by TD
12:43:39 [JKRhb]
... so the question is whether Profile can patch or override TD
12:43:39 [mjk]
q?
12:44:01 [JKRhb]
... then Profile would need to be REC to patch TD, otherwise we would need to fix TD
12:44:58 [JKRhb]
... if we fix it in TD 2.0, we are fine, otherwise we would need to publish Profiles as a Note
12:46:26 [mm]
q?
12:46:30 [mm]
ack m
12:47:08 [JKRhb]
lb: We can choose to move forward with the 2.0 philosophy that Profile is only further restricting what you can do with TD. So the way to expand the capabilities is only within TD
12:47:14 [dape]
q+ Q1: yet another alternative could be an errata.,... even though I don't like this path (not sure if feasible). Q2: How is the decision made, a poll?
12:47:30 [mm]
q+
12:47:32 [JKRhb]
... for version 1.0 we have this problem and we need to discuss whether Profile can fix TD
12:47:49 [JKRhb]
... or whether Profiles should only operate within this scope
12:47:52 [dape]
q+
12:48:18 [JKRhb]
... otherwise asynchronous actions would need to be axed from the current version
12:48:51 [JKRhb]
... or we close it as a note and we use the collection of issues in the right place
12:48:57 [JKRhb]
... and fix them
12:49:09 [JKRhb]
... want to have a consensus for that
12:49:24 [JKRhb]
... then we can discuss how to reach this aim most efficiently
12:49:44 [JKRhb]
kaz: I think we as the whole WoT WG should think about we should do as the whole WG
12:49:59 [JKRhb]
... we can of course listen to all of the participants
12:50:58 [JKRhb]
... but we should discuss the deliverables as a WG. Should focus on the current charter, we can publish the current draft as a note or REC in this charter period
12:51:42 [JKRhb]
mm: I've seen other WGs first publishing CRs and never going to REC
12:51:53 [mm]
ack m
12:51:56 [mm]
q?
12:51:58 [mm]
ack k
12:52:00 [JKRhb]
... I think we should first get a full consensus from the WG before going to REC
12:52:20 [JKRhb]
dp: I agree, would also say that we should first fix TD before going to REC
12:52:21 [mm]
q+
12:52:39 [JKRhb]
... I think there is a third option to first fix TD and then go to REC
12:52:56 [luca_barbato]
q+
12:52:59 [JKRhb]
... I think a full consensus might be unlikely, so maybe we could have a poll instead
12:53:09 [kaz]
s/we should do as the whole WG/what we should do as the whole WG/
12:53:11 [dape]
ack dape
12:53:13 [JKRhb]
mm: Procedurally, I think we can make a call for resolution
12:53:31 [JKRhb]
... remember that it is consensual, so if one person objects, it is dead
12:54:34 [mjk]
q?
12:54:36 [JKRhb]
... regarding actions, I feel like TD is a way to describe how a given system works, while a Profile describes a specific Thing should operate
12:55:02 [JKRhb]
... need to split this in the right way. Question whether we can fix this via TD alone, my guess is "no"
12:55:14 [JKRhb]
lb: We can fix it via TD, that is not a problem
12:55:31 [kaz]
present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi
12:55:37 [kaz]
q?
12:55:47 [mm]
ack m
12:55:49 [mm]
ack l
12:55:52 [kaz]
q+
12:56:00 [JKRhb]
... the question is whether we need additional vocabulary terms. We would need to publish a publication and the question is whether it would be version 1.0 or 1.1
12:56:16 [JKRhb]
mm: We should make a resolution that clearly states the options
12:56:22 [luca_barbato]
s/1.0 or 1.1/1.2 or 2.0/
12:56:42 [Ege]
+1
12:56:53 [kaz]
q?
12:57:05 [JKRhb]
... should list the different options and then let the group decide
12:57:14 [JKRhb]
... should be done by the Profile TF
12:57:32 [JKRhb]
kaz: Generally agree, the Profile TF should clarify the painpoints, though
12:57:47 [JKRhb]
... then these problems should be handled by the TD TF
12:57:57 [kaz]
q-
12:58:07 [JKRhb]
mm: Each option should be motivated with pros and cons listed
12:58:09 [luca_barbato]
q+
12:58:32 [JKRhb]
... we are out of time, so let's organize ourselves
12:58:46 [JKRhb]
lb: Should we open issues in Profile or new ones in TD?
12:59:10 [luca_barbato]
s/open issues/refer to the issues/
12:59:18 [JKRhb]
mm: Should be something like a Markdown document with the options
12:59:19 [luca_barbato]
s/new ones/open new ones/
12:59:32 [JKRhb]
... can link relevant issues
13:00:00 [JKRhb]
lb: Will probably create a draft .md file and then we can move it somewhere appropriate
13:00:29 [kaz]
[main call adjourned; policy discussion starts in 10 mins]
13:00:33 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:00:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
13:08:15 [luca_barbato]
scribenick luca_barbato
13:11:39 [luca_barbato]
topic: Policy PRs
13:12:41 [mjk]
https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1128
13:12:47 [luca_barbato]
subtopic: PR 1128
13:12:55 [kaz]
s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1128||
13:13:14 [kaz]
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1128 PR 1128 - [Policy] Move chair-decision-process.md from "proposals" to "policies"
13:13:43 [luca_barbato]
mk: We could just use the standard W3C policy
13:14:07 [mjk]
q?
13:14:10 [luca_barbato]
q-
13:14:18 [mjk]
q?
13:14:40 [luca_barbato]
mk: We can just close this PR, any objections?
13:14:52 [ktoumura]
ktoumura has joined #wot
13:15:27 [luca_barbato]
<no objections>
13:15:52 [mm]
proposal: Close PR#1128 on chair decision policy without merging.
13:16:13 [luca_barbato]
mm: Any objections?
13:16:21 [luca_barbato]
<no objections>
13:16:46 [mm]
resolution: Close PR#1128 on chair decision policy without merging.
13:18:07 [mjk]
https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1168
13:18:17 [luca_barbato]
subtopic: Issue 1168 and PR 1181
13:18:19 [mjk]
https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1181
13:19:00 [kaz]
s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1168||
13:19:17 [kaz]
i|1181|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/1168 Issue 1168 - [Policy Proposal] WoT-wide general policy on assertion ids|
13:19:23 [Ege]
q+
13:19:44 [luca_barbato]
mk: The Issue and the PR addressing it is about the id format for assertions
13:19:49 [kaz]
s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1181|-">https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1181|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1181 PR 1181 - Assertion id policy proposal|
13:19:56 [kaz]
rrsagent, make log public
13:20:01 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:20:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
13:20:34 [kaz]
i/We could just/scribenick: luca_barbato/
13:20:36 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:20:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
13:20:43 [luca_barbato]
ege: I planned to expand it, I can update it right now
13:20:58 [luca_barbato]
subtopic: PR 1182
13:21:02 [mjk]
https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1182
13:21:20 [kaz]
q+
13:22:05 [luca_barbato]
kaz: Regarding 1168, are we going to review it during this call?
13:22:19 [luca_barbato]
mk: Yes, in the mean time we moved to the next subtopic
13:22:31 [kaz]
s/subtopic: PR 1182//
13:22:36 [kaz]
s|https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1182||
13:22:41 [kaz]
subtopic: PR 1182
13:22:58 [luca_barbato]
mk: This is the current policy draft for article selection
13:23:14 [Ege]
q+
13:23:19 [kaz]
i|This is|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1182 PR 1182 - Article Selection Policy|
13:23:58 [luca_barbato]
ege: the second point needs more discussion
13:25:02 [Ege]
example of collaboration would be https://json-schema.org/blog/posts/w3c-wot-case-study
13:25:52 [kaz]
-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/cb53ed04bd38d31e7e6597519055b518111681fe/proposals/policies/article-selection.md rendered MD
13:25:57 [kaz]
q?
13:26:00 [kaz]
ack e
13:26:01 [luca_barbato]
mk: We have 3 kind of articles, all of them with some degree of involvement
13:26:30 [luca_barbato]
mk: I think it is consensus to not accept articles from third parties that have no relationship with us
13:27:10 [luca_barbato]
mk: I think the only question is about CG groups
13:27:35 [Ege]
q+
13:27:35 [kaz]
q?
13:27:54 [luca_barbato]
mk: Are other W3C CG considered close enough to us or not?
13:28:16 [cris1]
cris1 has joined #wot
13:28:50 [luca_barbato]
kaz: I agree with mm, we should start with only IG and WG participants
13:28:55 [cris1]
q+
13:28:59 [kaz]
s/mm,/McCool,/
13:29:02 [kaz]
ack k
13:29:22 [luca_barbato]
q+
13:30:56 [luca_barbato]
ege: I think we have to focus on if it is a person writing on their blog or if it is a company/organization writing on their public blog as the company itself.
13:31:33 [luca_barbato]
ege: I think there is agreement to not accept by default CG submissions
13:31:35 [kaz]
q?
13:31:59 [luca_barbato]
mk: I thought of W3C members not part of the WoT WG and IG
13:32:47 [luca_barbato]
ege: Under point 3 we could have a WG member that wrote an article on a magazine
13:33:05 [luca_barbato]
cris: What to do regarding Invited Expert in this regard?
13:33:25 [luca_barbato]
cris: I agree with kaz regarding not accepting CG submission
13:34:45 [luca_barbato]
cris: to me is not really clear what to do regarding social media posts from 3rd parties we like to showcase
13:35:12 [Ege]
q+
13:35:17 [Ege]
ack e
13:35:18 [Ege]
q+
13:35:22 [cris1]
ack c
13:35:22 [Ege]
ack c
13:37:21 [cris1]
q+
13:37:32 [kaz]
ack lu
13:37:45 [kaz]
q+
13:37:52 [kaz]
q-
13:38:36 [luca_barbato]
lb: I think we should consider the policy as the default, but in the end is up to the marketing TF decide if a content is worthy or not publication
13:39:46 [luca_barbato]
mk: If there something really compelling we can make an exception, we can update line 13 to clarify that
13:39:52 [kaz]
q+
13:40:22 [luca_barbato]
ege: I'd clarify line 9 to specify the IG members
13:40:39 [luca_barbato]
... I propose to be explicit regarding the Invited Experts
13:41:31 [kaz]
ack e
13:42:42 [mjk]
q?
13:42:49 [luca_barbato]
ege: Also if we do a collaboration with CG members, it should fall on point 2
13:43:10 [luca_barbato]
ege: I agree with Luca we can have exceptions but they should go through the main call
13:44:02 [luca_barbato]
cris: It feel we should be clear that is up to the marketing TF, I'd change line 7 to be less strict
13:44:14 [kaz]
ack c
13:44:54 [luca_barbato]
kaz: In the end the key criteria is all about content, but the default policies should be about the WG and IC members
13:45:26 [luca_barbato]
... if we really want to include more people, it would get kind of complicated and the whole IG would have to review the content
13:45:41 [luca_barbato]
... if the content is coming from IG and WG it is much easier
13:45:43 [mjk]
q?
13:45:45 [kaz]
ack k
13:45:53 [kaz]
s/about content/about the content/
13:46:05 [luca_barbato]
cris: we should be explicit that this is the default policy
13:46:18 [kaz]
s/about the content (=whether the content to be referred to or not)/
13:46:23 [luca_barbato]
q+
13:46:47 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
13:46:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
13:49:17 [kaz]
s/IC /IG /
13:49:45 [luca_barbato]
ack l
13:50:09 [cris1]
+1
13:50:13 [kaz]
q+
13:50:52 [luca_barbato]
kaz: I'd clarify more line 11
13:52:05 [Ege]
I think what Kaz wants is the following sentence: It is written by one of the IG or WG participants or by one of the W3C WoT WG or IG member organizations.
13:52:42 [kaz]
kaz: It is written by one of the IG or WG participants
13:53:10 [mjk]
q?
13:53:17 [Ege]
q+
13:53:32 [kaz]
q-
13:53:33 [kaz]
q+
13:53:41 [Ege]
https://www.siemens.com/de/de/unternehmen/stories/forschung-technologien/folder-topics/web-of-things.html
13:54:27 [kaz]
q+
13:55:15 [kaz]
ack e
13:55:27 [mjk]
q?
13:56:21 [kaz]
ack k
13:57:19 [luca_barbato]
q+
13:58:02 [mjk]
q?
13:58:08 [luca_barbato]
ack l
13:58:57 [luca_barbato]
mk: do we have consensus on line 11?
13:59:30 [luca_barbato]
lu: I'd merge it since we solved the last point of contention
14:00:57 [luca_barbato]
mk: objections?
14:01:02 [luca_barbato]
<no objections, merged>
14:01:15 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:01:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
14:01:28 [kaz]
q+
14:01:46 [kaz]
q0
14:01:50 [kaz]
s/q0//
14:01:51 [kaz]
ack k
14:01:55 [luca_barbato]
mk: We move the discussion to 1181 the next meeting
14:02:17 [kaz]
s/to 1181/on 1181 to/
14:02:32 [luca_barbato]
mk: adjourned
14:02:34 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
14:02:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/03-wot-minutes.html kaz
14:02:44 [Ege]
let's start at 5 past :)
14:03:08 [kaz]
s/let's start at 5 past :)//
14:04:22 [luca_barbato]
luca_barbato has left #wot
14:55:19 [TallTed]
TallTed has joined #wot
15:19:35 [bigbluehat]
bigbluehat has joined #wot
15:56:07 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #wot
16:07:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #wot