<trackbot> Date: 16 September 2009

trackbot, help

<trackbot> See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

<fhirsch> some scribe instructions are here

<fhirsch> http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Group/Scribe-Instructions.html

<fhirsch> but we've done the initial set up already

<fhirsch> when you join, please use irc to register yourself with Present+ your_name

<fhirsch> when you join please register yourself with Present+ name, and update your handle with zakim, aabb is irc-name

<marengo> + +039011228aabb

<fhirsch> when you join, please update the minutes attendance with Present+ your-name and update the phone bridge by mappting your number with zakim, e.g. zakim, aabb is maxf etc

<fhirsch> if you use a real name with the Present+ command then your real name will appear in the minutes attendance...

<dom> Group's list of participants

<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Sep/0031.html

<fhirsch> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Sep/0031.html

fhirsch: ok with agenda?

[agreement]

<wonsuk> +1 for current agenda

<dom> a few (re-used) slides

fhirsch: agenda item 2, introduction to W3C

dom: [goes through slides above]

introduction to W3C

<darobin> the full story on Recommendation Track: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#Reports

fhirsch: about the submissions, is there anything special to say. e.g. Bondi?

tlr: behind the scenes W3C and OMTP staff have been chasing companies involved with Bondi
... it is my understanding that all companies involved in Bondi have joined the WG or in one case have made a royalty-free commitment to the WG
... also, a few companies have indicated interest in future Bondi work. These companies will either join this group or make a similar comitment
... so I think we're good to go and don't have an IPR concern.

fhirsch: from a chairing perspective, we don't like to talk about IPR, so we'll avoid it as much as possible

darobin: as participant you're more than welcome to raise any issue youre aware of

General Logistics

<dom> Device APIs and Policy Working Group home page

fhirsch: we have a weekly call now scheduled, an IRC channel. There are instructions on our site.
... people should be familiar with IRC queues, tracking, agenda, etc.

<dom> DAP WG Tracker

darobin: the tracker is not just for chairs. People can give themselves action items.

fhirsch: chairs welcome help with maintaining and editing actions
... good form to keep status up to date, link emails to actions, etc.

<dom> ACTION-1?

<trackbot> ACTION-1 -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux to create scheduling questionnaire and distribute to WG -- due 2009-09-09 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/1

fhirsch: tracker can be used either in IRC, or on the web directly

<darobin> ISSUE-4?

<trackbot> ISSUE-4 -- API Versioning -- RAISED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/4

<dom> Tracker IRC documentation

darobin: there are a lot of tools, it's ok to ask questions about them, because we know it can be overwhelming at first

fhirsch: we need to keep a record of the decisions made, and those tools help avoiding needless controversies.

<dom> Registration for DAP WG F2F at TPAC 2009 (Nov 2-3)

fhirsch: no apparent issue with weekly telecon time. So left as is

<dom> Current registrants for F2F

fhirsch: TPAC: this group is meeting at the W3C TPAC. Please join us and register early.

<dom> [50$ fee supposed to be raised to 75$ on Sep 21st]

fhirsch: it's useful for the chairs to know who's going to be there, or who's going to be on the phone
... we might want to have a questionnaire to know that.
... but we can take that offline.

<dom> [if anyone is interested in attending the F2F by phone, let me know and I'll see if that's an option]

Announcements

fhirsch: I don't have any

darobin: nope

arve: about the face to face meeting, I'll be participating on the phone

<tlr> ACTION: thomas to set up dial-in questionnaire for face-to-face [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/16-dap-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Set up dial-in questionnaire for face-to-face [on Thomas Roessler - due 2009-09-23].

Charter Walk-Through

http://www.w3.org/2009/05/DeviceAPICharter

fhirsch goes through charter

<dom> Workshop report

arve: about the face-to-face meetings. Will we try to coordinate with other WGs like webapps?

fhirsch: personally, it's up to the WG to manage its timing, etc. It's generally a good thing to indeed try and coordinate.

darobin: difficult to focus on a single WG to coordinate with, but worth investigating

arve: I'm happy with the answer

<arve> pronouciation guide for my name: ar-vë

marcin: about TPAC logistics. A person cannot currently attend DAP or Webapps. Art Barstow is making sure it's going to be addressed

<dom> [I think we might want to consider a joint meeting with WebApps WG]

fhirsch: other conflicts exist, too

tlr: [looking at schedule]
... we're unlikely to be able to make major rearrangements, unfortunately
... I'm not sure what we can do about it.

fhirsch: the chairs will do their best, but can only do so much.

<tlr> ACTION: frederick to work with Robin and Team on TPAC schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/16-dap-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Work with Robin and Team on TPAC schedule [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2009-09-23].

darobin explains the importance of addressing issues like accessibility, i18n, mobility and security

darobin: the 2-implementation criterion is minimal. It would be better to have 2 implementations implementing *all* features

darobin: the general idea about deliverables is to have 1 document for each API.
... requires quite a few editors, and also prioritisation, but we can check that later

Kangchan: [unintelligible]

fhirsch: we could create task forces with other groups, we could add deliverables. But our first task is to make a roadmap

<Kangchan> My question is that in the WG charter, Devices in this WG is identified such as desktop computers, laptop computers, mobile internet devices (MIDs), cellular phones, etc. Is Television also one of the target devices?

<darobin> Kangchan, right, the list is not exhaustive — all target devices are relevant

<tlr> kangchan, as darobin just said on IRC, we're Any Device, Anywhere, Any Time, so this is a list of examples. Yes, TV is in scope.

fhirsch: informal dependencies are good, so I'd like to find out who is involved in other groups.
... about tracking and actions I'd rather not get blocked on something someone is supposed to do and can't
... rules for Good Standing aren't that strict

darobin: Good Standing isn't enforced stricltly, but it is more important within the editors pool

fhirsch: remember that technical discussions should happen on the public list.
... minutes are also published in public

Editors

darobin: basically, specification editors transform WG decisions into text
... there's no need to go through editor work right now.
... there are plenty of resources on the W3C site
... we chose to have an set of editors for each API and for policy
... we welcome more people. If you're not sure, please talk to the chairs offline. We can assist with techniques and give you an idea about time commitment

[unintelligible]

darobin: not just 1 editor for all the documents, but a pool of editors.

fhirsch: different specs could move at different speeds, too

darobin: putting all APIs in 1 document would be a problem if a problem arose
... because if at Last Call a technical issue arises, the whole document needs to go to Last Call again.

[??? volunteers]

fhirsch: We could use some help on the policy side, too

arve: I note that figuring out who is in the pool could be done later as well

fhirsch: definitely
... although it's helpful to know early, for practical reasons

Policy Segment

fhirsch: as chairs it's important to know who's going to make submissions, or update them.

<fhirsch> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/

fhirsch: we have contributions listed on the home page already
... I don't believe there's a lot in the Nokia submissions on policy. There has been an update in Bondi though.
... It talks about packaging, widget signing, etc. Uses webapps spec and adds requirements. Then it talks about features.
... there are 2 security areas addressed, I can't go into details, but features let you say what things you need to do,
... access and permissions associated with capabilities, etc.

APIs Segment

darobin: some work has started on the mailing list.

<darobin> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/open

darobin: I'd like to look quickly at open issues.
... The first 4 are about API style
... Strawpoll on ISSUE-4 was unanimous so I'd like to close it, while leaving the others open
... And some decisions on style will be obvious as we start

<tlr> issue-4?

<trackbot> ISSUE-4 -- API Versioning -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/4

darobin: any objections about closing issue 4?

[none]

<tlr> RESOLUTION: issue-4 closed

darobin: now closed.

marcin: I will submit input documents to BONDI and W3C soon (in about a week)

darobin: issues 5 to 16 are requirements
... we are trying avoid to go through a heavyweight requirement gathering process
... but we'll switch to heavier if lightweight fails
... I started drafting requirements for 2 examples

<darobin> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/camera/Overview.html

<darobin> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/Overview.html

darobin:It would be helpful if people would send requirement for each APIs
... by no means the documents are final
... who would like to volunteer to submit requirements?
... application configuration: nothing yet
... application launcher. [no response].

arve: how about merging those 2 issues for now and gather requirements in 1 go?

darobin: fine with that

<darobin> ACTION: arve to draft requirements for App Conf & App Launcher, possibly by getting maxf or Marcos to do it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/16-dap-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Draft requirements for App Conf & App Launcher, possibly by getting maxf or Marcos to do it [on Arve Bersvendsen - due 2009-09-23].

darobin: calendar API?

JK: perhaps requirements should be given to more than one person

darobin: of course, the final reqs wouldn't be from just one person

richt: I was wondering about the level of requirements needed. Should they be proper documents, or mailing list posts?

darobin: just mailing list ok. Similar level to the example ones (i.e. high-level functional)

arve: look at File I/O, for instance

darobin: any takers for calendar? [none]
... communication log? [none]
... contacts? Robin volunteers

<darobin> ACTION: robin to do requirements for contacts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/16-dap-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-10 - Do requirements for contacts [on Robin Berjon - due 2009-09-23].

darobin: gallery? [none]
... any other?

Dzung Tran: I would like to tak issue-14

scribe: is there a description of what those APIs are?

darobin: yes, in the charter.

Tran: how would I bring up other items about new APIs?

darobin first submit it to the list, then we'll figure out if we need a new charter

<hendry> has each editor of existing BONDI apis emailed to ask to become W3C editors?

<JonathanJ> DAP open issues: http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/open

darobin: any opinions on prioritization among specifications?
... are there any we should focus on first?

<richt> could I suggest messaging, contacts and filesystem?

[no answer on the phone]

<tlr> richt, I recommend getting on the queue

JereK: I suggest Calendar, Contact, Messaging: Tasks

<dom> +1 on Calendar and Contacts

scribe: other possibility is to use smaller subgroups of APIs: grouped by multimedia, system, etc.

darobin: hearing people arguing for Calendar, Contacts, Messaging at least

richt: messaging, contact and filesystem
... we have a lot of contribution on filesystem already

arve: filesystem needs to be given priority. There is incompatible work going on, and implementations

<darobin> RB: hearing mostly FS, Calendar, Contact, and Messaging

<wonsuk> +1 for JereK's proposal

arve: anyone wants to start drafting suggestion for those APIs? Even if it means taking from submitted ones?
... volunteer for FileSystem

<darobin> ACTION: arve to get the ball rolling for the FS API [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/16-dap-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-11 - Get the ball rolling for the FS API [on Arve Bersvendsen - due 2009-09-23].

<marcin2> Tasks + Calendar + Contacts = PIM, could we handle them as one?

marcin: would try to prioritise together PIM apis (tasks, contacts, calendar)

darobin: various existing APIs don't necessarily have the same ties

arve: we used to consider them as 1 in Opera Platform (2004-2005)
... dependencies makes implementation hard. I would treat them as separate

darobin: we could merge them later, if we find they're very linked.

marcin: ok, just want to make sure we're using patterns consistently across those APIs

darobin: and across all of them

AOB

richt: I wanted to check about how to go forward, regarding
... evolutions planned in the charter if something new comes along (like new APIs)

darobin: we should then discuss about rechartering, if only for IPR reasons

richt: BONDI are producing new APIs, not sure how that would fit in.

darobin: can discuss later.

arve: we have to be aware of those issues sooner than later.
... if we have a concrete list of issues requiring rechartering, it's better to handle it now rather than in 2 years

darobin, not sure that's necessary actually

<arve> I'm about to drop off, my battery's dead

wonsuk: we need to make a wiki page for WG

<arve> +1

darobin: we have a non-wiki page. If anybody wants to contribute, we can give them CVS access

<dom> (regrets from me next week)

<darobin> bleaaargh

darobin: adjourned. kthxbai