Meeting minutes
Agenda
Mizushima: (goes through the agenda)
Kaz: we should talk about your proposal on WoT-JP CG's reusing the use case template for their events
Mizushima: ok
… any other topics for today?
Ege: is the test run proposal also on the agenda?
Mizushima: yes
Logistics
Mizushima: no plans for cancellations atthe moment
… but need to think about summer vaation
… myself planning to take summer vacation from aug-22 till aug-31
… so would cancel the call on Aug 28
McCool: will discuss vacation during the main call too
Meeting Plan
Mizushima: would fix the use case issue template today
July-10: Refactoring and Fix Github Issue template using YAML July-17: Fix Github Issue template using YAML July-24 and July-31: Initial discussion on Requirements Template Aug-7 and Aug-14: Fix basic Functional Requirements Template Aug-21 and Sep-4: Fix basic Technical Requirements Template
McCool: one thing thinking recently is refactoring
<Ege> +1 to mccool
McCool: perhaps we don't need to think about the detail on functional vs technical requirements
Kaz: probably we don't have to think about that kind of future topics now
… but should concentrate on the topics for today now
… so probably you should handle the long-term schedule separately in addition to the agenda topics for "today"
Mizushima: ok
Minutes
Mizushima: (goes through the minutes)
Kaz: the TF resolution on the UC Editors has been approved by the whole group too during the main call last week
… so you can update the UC TF wiki and the UCR Note draft accordingly
Mizushima: ok
… any objections for the minutes?
(none)
minutes approved
WoT-JP CG's reusing the UC template
[wot-uc] About the use of our Use Case Template in WoT-JP CG
Mizushima: sent out a message to the whole group
Mizushima: should think about the procedure
1. The WoT-JP CG would like to copy the WoT Use Case template to their repository. 2. Then they would like to describe their use cases in Japanese using the template. 3. And bring the use cases back to the WoT Use Cases TF after translating the use cases in Engish. 4. The original Japanese use cases should be archived in the wot-usecases repository.
Mizushima: would agree with the above procedure
Kaz: firstly, this is discussion for TF-level resolution. right?
… then we need to think about how to deal with #4 above
McCool: my point was possible concern about the mis-translation of the original JP content into English
… should have an archive of the original JP version
Ege: agree with the overall proposal
… but would suggest we start that after testing the usage of the template ourselves
Kaz: so there are two questions
… 1. when to start this (e.g., after testing it ourselves)
… 2. how/where to manage the resources
Mizushima: question #1 above (when to start) can be discussed as part of the "Refactoring" topic later
McCool: what's the date?
Kaz: I'm OK with discussing the detail later
… but we should make basic agreement quickly now
… e.g., I'm OK with starting the procedure after testing the usage of the template ourselves within the WoT IG
… and we need to think about how/where to manage the JP resources anyway
<Ege> +1 let's do a trial run asap
Mizushima: the WoT-JP CG event is expected on July 26
Ege: let's do a trial run for the UC template right away
… we already have existing example use cases
… the question is rather how to extract requirements later
<Ege> selected use cases are tracked at https://
Ege: we can even try on today
McCool: fine by me
Kaz: we already have some more expected agenda items including finalization of the template itself
… so we should handle them first
… and you can ask people to submit example use cases based on the finalized template as an action item later
Mizushima: ok
… then the proposed procedure above?
Kaz: we still need to clarify #4 above (where/how to manage the JP version use case resources)
… for example, the WoT JP CG can copy the UC template and the issue mechanism from the wot-usecases repo to their repo
… and everything will be automatically archived on their repo
McCool: right
… we can add modification/clarification about that for #4 above
suggest changing point 4 to read: "The original Japanese use cases should be archived so they are available for future reference."
<Tomo> proposal: suggest changing point 4 to read: "The original Japanese use cases should be archived so they are available for future reference."
(no objections)
RESOLUTION: suggest changing point 4 to read: "The original Japanese use cases should be archived so they are available for future reference."
Fix the YAML-based Use Case template
typos
issue 288 - [UC Template] Typos
Kaz: have you fixed the typos?
Mizushima: yes
(closed)
Stakeholders
PR 291 - Use a checklist for the stakeholders
Mizushima: Luca made modification to use checkboxes
… ok to merge that?
McCool: sure
(no objections)
merged
Submitters
Issue 286 - [UC Template] "Submitter" should indicate Real Name(s)
Mizushima: we don't need to discuss this at the moment
McCool: eventually need some way to find a real name when we publish the UCR Note
Ege: need to have not only GitHub names but real names too
… would like to suggest we have real names and email addresses
Luca: to contact the proposers, we need to have email addresses too
Mizushima: it's not good to describe email address on the public GitHub
<Ege> to be specific I did not say that this information has to be in the github issue
McCool: there could be possible privacy issue to put the email address on GitHub
Kaz: had discussion with the Security contact from the W3C Team
… basically, getting email address itself is fine if needed
… and we can think about how to manage the information separately, e.g., asking them to send the information separately to the team-wot list
… and we can add a note about that to the UC template
Luca: the simplest way is we don't require email address
… when we need to contact the person, we need an email address at that time
… another option is our declaring that we reserve the right to close the UC issue when we can't get enough clarification
… would stay away from dealing with privacy
Ege: can agree with Luca
… if we can close the UC proposal issue when we can't get enough clarification, that's fine
… on the other hand, if we keep the contact information, that should be handled carefully
McCool: email address is technically not stable and changeable
… but if the email information can be kept in a secret manner, that's fine
… anyway, would have real names on the UC proposals
<Ege> +1 to collecting the name
McCool: we should have a policy to delete UC proposals if we can't contact the submitters
<McCool> please add to the minutes: I feel we should have a policy that allows us to remove a use case if we can't contact the submitters in the future
Kaz: unfortunately, we're getting out of time
… but would suggest we record the important point that we should have a policy that allows us to remove a use case if we can't get enough clarification or can't contact them
… let's continue the discussion next time
[adjourned]