Meeting minutes
Well-known destinations
<matatk> gb, off
matatk: janina and I suggest we could use new gh issues each week as the basis for our agenda.
matatk: This will require us to (a) encourage new issues [get a draft out] and (b) use gh for specific issues [like we used to]
matatk: Since AC mtg have been reaching out for followup
matatk: Have response from one, waiting for a the additional ones
matatk: No tech feedback yet, but working on communications for that
Logistics
matatk: I'm away next Tuesday
matatk: Janina is away on the 11th
janina: I propose we skip next week's call
Abhinav: +1
janina: Proposal is the next Adapt call is the 4th of June. Let's give ourselves clear actions for next time.
Lionel_Wolberger: +1
RESOLUTION: Next Adapt call will be the 4th of June
Well-known actions :-)
Abhinav: What are we going to put out as a proposal? Will we incorporate updates?
matatk: Key things: 1. Follow up with AC participants who had opinions; 2. Update docs esp Explainer and early spec draft that reflects Explainer
matatk: Hopefully, AC people with opinions will join a future call with us
matatk: We need a "straw doc" to have something to discuss
matatk: Shortly thereafter we can decide whether that's FPWD ready
matatk: Hopes to have drafts by next mtg
Abhinav: Are we clear what we want from the people we're contacting?
Abhinav: Various tech approaches?
matatk: Both and all--We have use case validation from our COGA conversation ...
matatk: The AC participants are interested in what's appropriate for solving our needs/reqs
matatk: That's why it's appropriate for us to have documentation that supports our approach
matatk: Specifically, the AC people I'm contacting were interested in participating
matatk: One is the actual author of the IETF WKU
Abhinav: Should we limit Explainer to one tech approach? Or do we need to publish other approaches and why we accept or reject them?
matatk: It's a bit different now because it's early work
matatk: Generally, an Explainer explains the decided approach. But, the alternatives considered are always important in an Explainer
matatk: Even though we're not yet locked in on it, we do have a leading candidate and we should draft the Explainer as what we've decided because that's what was presented to the AC
matatk: Use cases go first in the Explainer, and they're very important to a successful effort
Abhinav: Concerned to have open questions addressed
Abhinav: Or that we're aware and plan to take it up later
matatk: Definitely need an Open Questions section
janina: We're engaging the people we need who can help us solve for the use cases we have for WKD. So we don't need to address this all ourselves.
janina: The AC is the body of people who will have a vote, and need to agree, on what approach we are taking. We have to convince the wider W3C that what we're proposing makes sense. This includes use cases, as well as other approaches considered.
Abhinav: Just concerned to capture our open questions and get them into the Explainer, even if we don't have full content for them
matatk: First draft is something we aready have--it's on github
matatk: What I'm talking is what I expect to have for our next mtg
matatk: We will have open questions without much detail
matatk: We will be showing the specifically interested AC people our solutions approaches
matatk: Phps that includes a request that IETF version up their WKU
matatk: Once we're happy with our explainer and draft spec, we go to the formal FPWD
matatk: That's where we need to be very clear and reasonably complete
matatk: That's where we ask for wide review, FPWD means "First Public Working Draft"
matatk: If FPWD has enough detail for implementation, it may be implemented
matatk: Too much detail now could well be wasted work, because it can change; and likely will change
W3C Process Bible: https://
Recommendation Track info: https://
Abhinav: https://
Abhinav: Have we read RFC 8615 for a complete understanding
Abhinav: URL needs to be registered and what it's for, but the spec doesn't define what's returned; could be json, text, etc
Abhinav: Seems to support complex responses to facilitat our more nuanced needs
matatk: Suggest a gh issue to make sure we all come up to speed!
Symbols
Lionel_Wolberger: Puts up AAC approach for form fields
Lionel_Wolberger: I was trying to recruit, and found that the Task Fore landing page is out of date
… https://
… we need links to the former Content draft, etc
… Janina suggests that we take this up in June
Issue 240
janina: Russell sent back a corrected graphic. I propose that means matatk can post on issue 240 now. Agree?
janina: Does anyone object to using the corrected graphic, and response to 240 we previously discussed?
RESOLUTION: matatk to respond on issue 240 as discussed