Meeting minutes
Agenda Review
<kaz> Agenda for today
Mizushima: We will first have a look at logistics and minutes, then we will discuss improving the progress and the template
… I think Sebastian is going to coming here later
… so I would propose first discussing the template and then the process
McCool: No need to ask, you can just decide that
Logistics
Mizushima: There are cancellations due to summer vacations in August (Aug 14, 21 and 28)
… in September, Ege will also not be available
<EgeKorkan> please hold the use cases call even if I am not present :)
Mizushima: I would propose, though, to have calls in September, due to TPAC
McCool: For TPAC, we should probably reserve some time on the schedule to discuss use cases
… I can put it on the agenda right now
Kaz: I agree
McCool: We can spend the September 4 meeting to discuss the meeting materials
Mizushima: Then I would not cancel the use case call
Meeting Plan
Mizushima: Same as previous call
… I think we need to fix the GitHub issue template
… and perform the refactoring
… today, we will also discuss the process of the use case task force
No objections to that
Minutes Review
Mizushima: In the previous call, we discussed the YAML-based template
… we merged the PR 298
… and also discussed the topic regarding email addressed and names, but did not have enough time to finish the discussion
<McCool> (I have added Use Cases to the WoT TPAC agenda: https://
Mizushima: is it okay? Any objections to approving the minutes?
No objections, minutes are approved
Fix the YAML-based Use Case template
<kaz> PR 300 - New Use Case Template Proposal
Mizushima: I would like to discuss this topic first
… I think there still some issues regarding how to fix the template
… which delay the progress of this Task Force and of other documents
… and there are still items that we need to discuss, for example the policies regarding the submission of emails and real names
… I therefore think that the template might not be finished until the end of the yearm which is really bad
… I discussed this with Ege, based on which he created a new template in PR 300
… could you explain the PR, please?
Ege: When I tried to submit a use case, I noticed that there is a lot information asked that even I cannot provide
… somewhat radical proposal, has less information and only asks question that I as a spec author need
… for example, asks for explaining where the gap in the existing standards is and how the specification needs to be adjusted to cover my use case
<Tomo> > w3c/
Ege: also asks for some background information
<EgeKorkan> https://
Mizushima: (shows a rendered version of Ege's template)
<Zakim> Ege, you wanted to react to kaz
Mizushima: (presents the structure of Ege's approach)
… asks for problem with existing specifications
… as well as solutions and other comments
… very, very simple approach
… would like to discuss this with you
Kaz: There was some discussion during the TD coordination call yesterday as well
… basically agree with Ege here
… maybe we should start with a level 1 approach like this
… then create a more detailed level 2 template later
… so we can start with this two-step approach
McCool: Noticed that we've removed privacy, security etc. in this template
… however, we can cover that in a second level follow-up. If we do that, I am fine with this approach
… do you have a list of what you've removed, Ege?
Ege: Removed security, accessibility, privacy, and the others. Submitters could add that in a free text field, if they are already aware of the implications here
… I also removed Adopters
… this was mostly based on my experience, since even I didn't now what to provide there
… so the new template focussed on helping the editors with the specifications. More information can then be provided in the second level
Sebastian: I also like this proposal
… maybe two points to improve here
Sebastian: there could be hints or examples what to provide here
… for example, selecting the domains where the use case is applicable
… similar to what we currently have in the original template proposal
Ege: There is something in the "problem" section already
Sebastian: Something like that looks good
McCool: I have a simpler proposal: Just adding a link to the "domains" section in the use case document, then people can just pick the domain that is applicable to them. This shortens the template and makes it easier to add more domains later
Sebastian leaves
<kaz> removed fields: potential adopters, potential applications, expected devices, expected data, link to similar use case, other use case, expected relationships (these are mentioned as possible input), security, privacy and more considerations
Mizushima: I think Ege's proposal is good
… because the use case template should be simple
… if the template is complicated, they cannot describe their use case
… so I think this use case template is good. I also agree with Kaz
McCool: Want to suggest how to move forward: We have three weeks without meetings coming up and we have a proposal on the table
… we have simpler template, with a few things to fix
… we can ask for feedback in the main call
… but set a deadline for adoption right after the end of the break
… so we can do a call for resolution to adopt it on September 4
… this gives people enough time to provide input and also fix the two issues we have identified above
… then we will have the template by September 4
Ege: Sounds good
Mizushima: Agree
… I would then first merge Ege's proposal
McCool: If we leave it as a PR, we can ask people to review the document
… and then collect feedback. Otherwise people would need to open new PRs
Ege: Agree, working in PRs is easier
McCool: Then leave it as a PR, make the call for resolution, and also ask people in the main call for reviewing it
… do you expect work on use cases in the TD call in the meantime, Ege?
Ege: We wanted to start working on this in today's TD call, picking a couple of use cases and then documenting experiences after the summer break
McCool: I think this template is a proper subset of the original template
<kaz> original template
<kaz> Ege's proposed shorter template
McCool: we can start working on that with this template and then also have use cases ready on September 4
Kaz: Actually, I was planning to give the exact comment, so I think we should make a task force resolution in this call
McCool: I will prepare a proposal
<EgeKorkan> w3c/
McCool: Is it okay to adopt this proposal as a resolution?
<McCool> proposal: Discuss the new template given in usecases PR w3c/
McCool: Made some small tweaks
Kaz: Just to make sure, are you planning to add this point to the main call agenda after making the TF resolution now, Michael?
McCool: Yeah, and then I would turn this into a main call resolution after September 4
RESOLUTION: Discuss the new template given in usecases PR w3c/
McCool: meaning we would just push the merge button
No objections to the proposal, resolution above has been accepted
Improving the Use Case TF process
McCool: We now have the plan of publishing the template on September 4
… so that unblocks the gathering of the use cases from TD etc
… and we will also have some initial use cases from the TD TF
… so we should discuss what we should put onto the TPAC agenda
… and what we want to get done by the end of the year
McCool: We discussed having a co-moderator
… in general, can we parallelize processes?
… we have two aspects to deal here, requirements and use cases
… so there is a natural split, which we could cover with two moderators
… another split would be English/Japanese, with the Japanese use cases being translates ones from English
… in general, we are a bit behind and need to catch up
Kaz: I generally agree with Michael, and we need to carefully think about this
… since use cases are the basis of all other specifications
… need to think about how to organize the schedule and how to plan the next steps
… agree that McCool's mentioned next steps are possible options
Daniel: Regarding Kaz's points: In general, use cases should drive the other specifications. But since we are lagging behind with the use cases, I am wondering if we should proceed with the other specifications regardless, or we should block the work there due to missing use cases
… since I see that we are also not making that much progress in other TFs as well
McCool: I think we should not block work, but we should still motivate work with requirements and use cases, and document why we are doing things
… I think we can parallelize it, but in the end, we need to connect everything to a use case
Kaz: Agree again with Michael, which is also why we discussed with Ege coming up with a simpler template to make progress
Daniel: I also agree with that
Ege: I think everyone is aligned
… I think for the Scripting API, the desire is to just connect features to use cases, and then submit them afterwards
McCool: That is fine, use cases do not need to come from outside the group
Kaz: Ege also wants to discuss this in the TD call today
Mizushima: I think we don't need to explicitly think about Japanese versions of use cases
McCool: Working with use cases is a lot of in general, so having a co-moderator for requirements is a good thing in general
… so in the main call, we should make a call for a moderator and then give people three weeks to step up
… then having a separate moderator will also make the work easier for you, Mizushima-san
Mizushima: I think I would like to improve the progress as soon as possible, there are many, many options to do that
… another co-moderator is an option and will probably also improve the situation
McCool: I am a bit worried that use cases will fill up all of the time, so having another person for focusing on requirements will ensure that there is still work happening in that regard as well
Mizushima: I am okay with calling for another moderator in the main call today
Kaz: I would like to give a few comments:
… agree with Michael again
… also, please remember that the UC TF is the work of the whole WoT IG's responsibility
… which is why Michael is making these suggestions, which I appreciate
… also, we can consider the Japanese CG separately, and focus on the IG use cases here
McCool: I will take some time to prepare the main call based on our results here today
… I adjusted the agenda of the main call and copied our resolution text there, which we can discuss under "Quick Items"
AOB
Mizushima: Next meeting is on September 4, I would like you all to review the new template. Please comment on the PR if you have anything to add
Daniel: Just noticed that the calendar does not reflect the cancellations yet
… needs to be updated
McCool: We will clean it up today, Kaz and I will take care of it
Kaz: We can quickly confirm the changes in the main call today, Michael and I will fix it
<kaz> [adjourned]