See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 05 June 2013
<scribe> scribe: Josh_Soref
<fjh> Please review Media Capture and Streams by 15 June, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0080.html
<dom> Bugzilla list of bugs for Media Capture (with link to "submit new bug")
fjh: thanks Josh_Soref for sending out the minutes yesterday
... is there any concern about approving them?
<fjh> Approve minutes from 29 May 2013
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Jun/att-0007/minutes-2013-05-29.html
fjh: we talked a lot about testing
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 29 May 2013 are approved
<fjh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0078.html
<fjh> No comments received, extend charter through 31 December 2014?
dom: i'll take the action
... i need to get internal feedback on this activity
... i can do this as part of my action item
<fjh> ACTION: dom to arrange for DAP charter extension, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0078.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-dap-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-637 - Arrange for DAP charter extension, per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0078.html [on Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - due 2013-06-12].
<fjh> LC period ends 13 June.
<fjh> Updated to mention web notifications, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0073.html (Anssi)
<fjh> minor editorial suggestion, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Jun/0006.html
fjh: anything else to discuss on this?
<fjh> anssik, are you able to update draft based on my comment?
<anssik> yes
fjh: we said we'd wait until the end of May
... we had no list discussion
... we could wait a little longer, but i don't want to wait until the end of July
... i propose we wait another week, and i'll send a message after that
anssik: i'm looking for feedback from anne and dougt
... let me check the Mozilla Bugzilla
... to give you a quick summary
<anssik> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=842952
anssik: they don't have experience merging the interfaces
fjh: is there a way to watch bugzilla?
anssik: you can create an account
... and you can cc yourself to the bugs
Josh_Soref: you can also watch others
... either placeholder accounts/components
... or interesting people
anssik: i'll include links to their bugs in the wiki
fjh: i don't know if you'll be on the Futures calls
... it will be interesting
... so we're still waiting
... and we need to make a decision in a week or two
... who's doing this work?
... dougt?
anssik: dougt was the original author
... Mozilla has many contributors
... some are volunteering
... so you can't expect schedules
... they aren't committing to schedules
... the guy working on this seems to be a volunteer
fjh: is this Jeremy?
anssik: yes, and i don't recognize him
<fjh> prefix issue , http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Apr/0054.html (Jean-Claude)
<fjh> status http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0028.html (Rich)
<fjh> Awaiting further activity
<fjh> Test cases and Interop
<fjh> Request for implementation status, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013May/0069.html
<fjh> Test case approval process http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Jun/0003.html
<fjh> new version of jean-claude implementation at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Jun/0009.html
fjh: all of the web tests are in a single repository
... and people in-w3 and outside-w3 can contribute using git
... and then there's a question about Approval
... and people said it's cumbersome to use WG to deal with approving
... and the pull-request
... is handled by people relevant to the test
... is that it, dom?
dom: not sure where you got that
fjh: you sent questions to the list
dom: i sent questions to the list
... but i don't know that i saw a process detailed
... let me state what i understand of the current situation
... until last week, i thought moving to github was aligning the Repo aspects of our test-work
... tobie indicated as part of using GitHub repository
... we'd have to align w/ a given process for submitting-reviewing-approving test cases
... and the reason is so we have a single process to make it easy for people to understand it
... and be open to external people
... afaik, the process itself hasn't been defined yet
... in particular, i don't know what the review and approval process is supposed to be
fjh: tobie said he'd write something down based on what i was reading between the lines
... we'll see, we're waiting for tobie to write it down
... i did see a message from him to you saying yes, we need to write things down
... it doesn't affect us in the interim
... we still need tests
... and anssik is working on this?
anssik: yes
dom: if we want to exit CR
... for some of our specs, we need our testcases reviewed and approved by the WG
... i guess we could still do the old approval process
... without waiting for the new centralized process
... if we do wait for this new process, it'll create a time dependency, that we won't be happy with
fjh: with GitHub, you need to use pull requests
Josh_Soref: not precisely true
fjh: and wait for someone to merge things
dom: i can merge things
fjh: so we're good basically, we don't have a problem
dom: we still need to define a plan for reviewing+approving testcases
... it needs to be done sooner or later
fjh: the issue is adequate coverage
... and we want to interop for all features
... and given we want to make the spec simple and modular
... so the WG can do a CfC of "do we have coverage"
... i'm hoping it isn't a big issue
dom: who would do coverage analysis
... and when would the CfC happen?
fjh: a test writer (e.g. anssik) could decide they think they have coverage
... and the WG would have a CfC
... given the simplicity of the specs we're doing now
... Vibration
... but NSD is different
... not sure how we'd do that given the limited expertise in the group
... i guess the Media Capture TF will review test cases for their work
... that's an action
<fjh> ACTION: fjh to review webapps approach to reviewing test cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-dap-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-638 - Review webapps approach to reviewing test cases [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2013-06-12].
<fjh> ACTION-523?
<trackbot> ACTION-523 -- Anssi Kostiainen to work on test cases for battery, vibration, and HTML Media Capture -- due 2012-08-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/523
<fjh> ACTION-621?
<trackbot> ACTION-621 -- Anssi Kostiainen to create test cases for HTML Media Capture -- due 2013-03-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/621
anssik: there haven't been updates
... i haven't had much time
<fjh> ACTION-634?
<trackbot> ACTION-634 -- Anssi Kostiainen to update introduction of vibration to refer to notification API -- due 2013-06-05 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/634
fjh: you did action-634
... i can close that
<fjh> close ACTION-634
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-634 Update introduction of vibration to refer to notification API.
anssik: yes that can be closed
<fjh> ISSUE-128?
<trackbot> ISSUE-128 -- Need more description on how bandwidth should be estimated -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/128
fjh:
<dom> (regrets for next week from me)
Josh_Soref: there's a Futures call in 35 minutes
<fjh> futures call http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013Jun/0009.html
[ adjourned ]
trackbot, end meeting