[admin] Draft minutes 8 Mar 2018 teleconference

Hi All,

The draft minutes from today's teleconference are at:

https://www.w3.org/2018/03/08-dap-minutes.html


And below the same in plain text format. Thanks Fuqiao for scribing and everyone for participating.

Thanks,

-Anssi (Device and Sensors WG Chair)


   [1]W3C

      [1] https://www.w3.org/


                             – DRAFT –
                    DAS Working Group teleconference

08 March 2018

   [2]IRC log

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2018/03/08-dap-irc


Attendees

   Present
          alexander_shalomov, Anssi_Kostiainen, Fuqiao_Xue,
          Mikhail_Pozdnyakov, Wanming_Lin

   Regrets

   Chair
          Anssi_Kostiainen

   Scribe
          xfq, xfq_

Contents

     * [3]Meeting Minutes
         1. [4]Welcome, scribe selection, agenda review,
            announcements
         2. [5]Sensor APIs wide review response
         3. [6]Sensor APIs issue review
         4. [7]Sensor APIs CR readiness
         5. [8]Rechartering
         6. [9]AOB

Meeting Minutes

Welcome, scribe selection, agenda review, announcements

   anssik: We met in Jan. Made lots of progress since then.
   … Will talk about publication plan and new charter today.

Sensor APIs wide review response

   [10]https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/299


     [10] https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/299


   <anssik> [11]https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/

   299#issuecomment-369924348

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/299#issuecomment-369924348


   anssik: In the TAG issue ([12]https://github.com/w3ctag/

   design-reviews/issues/207), we got a lot of feedback
   … also got feedback from Security IG and PING

     [12] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/207),

   <anssik> Search "Proposed changes:"

   anssik: Search "Proposed changes:" in this issue to find PRs
   corresponding to the feedbacks

   <anssik> Summary: Based on the group's assessment, TAG review
   feedback did not yield normative changes to the specifications
   under wide review. The review comments helped improve various
   informative aspects of the specifications and readability was
   further improved. The review comments further reinforced
   group's view that the specifications are ready to advance to
   Candidate Recommendation stage in the near future.

   anssik: the sensors specs are ready to go to CR

Sensor APIs issue review

   <anssik> [13]https://github.com/w3c/sensors/projects/4


     [13] https://github.com/w3c/sensors/projects/4


   anssik: I would like to congratulate the group to close all
   Level 1 issues of Generic Sensor

   <anssik> Throw exception when screen coordinate system is not
   supported

   <anssik> [14]https://github.com/w3c/accelerometer/issues/35


     [14] https://github.com/w3c/accelerometer/issues/35


   anssik: propose to discuss open issues of concrete sensors
   specs today

   anssik: I personally think feature detection of this is useful
   … WDYT?

   <anssik> OrientationSensor interface to provide Euler angles

   <anssik> [15]https://github.com/w3c/orientation-sensor/issues/

   43

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/orientation-sensor/issues/43


   [silence]

   anssik: ok, we will make it in L1

   alexander_shalomov: manual conversion in JS is needed currently
   … if you search "how to use motion sensors on the web", the
   results use old APIs

   anssik: we need to decide if this feature is in scope [in L1]

   anssik: should we defer this to L2, or in a new CR of L1?

   <anssik> GeomagneticOrientationSensor interface

   alexander_shalomov: L2, I think.

   <anssik> [16]https://github.com/w3c/orientation-sensor/issues/

   15

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/orientation-sensor/issues/15


   anssik: ok then.

   <anssik> Improve guidance on UI for user consenting

   anssik: we'll defer orientation-sensor#15 to L2 too

   <anssik> [17]https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/352


     [17] https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/352


   anssik: this is a very recent issue
   … it's about guidance on UI for user consenting
   … what the spec does now is providing extension points

   <anssik> [18]https://github.com/w3c/sensors/pull/353


     [18] https://github.com/w3c/sensors/pull/353


   <anssik> [19]https://w3c.github.io/

   sensors/#security-and-privacy

     [19] https://w3c.github.io/sensors/#security-and-privacy


   anssik: this PR basically adds a note
   … in my opinion the issue is addressed
   … any comment?

   Mikhail_Pozdnyakov: in my opinion, this is beyond our scope
   … the mitigation strategies already mitigate the potential
   risks

   anssik: this spec is a huge improvement over the previous APIs
   in terms of security and privacy
   … propose to close this issue; feel free to comment/reopen if
   you have further comments.

Sensor APIs CR readiness

   <anssik> [20]https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/355


     [20] https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/355


   anssik: I created a meta issue

   <anssik> Generic Sensor API - [21]https://w3c.github.io/

   sensors/

     [21] https://w3c.github.io/sensors/


   <anssik> Ambient Light Sensor - [22]https://w3c.github.io/

   ambient-light/

     [22] https://w3c.github.io/ambient-light/


   <anssik> Accelerometer - [23]https://w3c.github.io/

   accelerometer/

     [23] https://w3c.github.io/accelerometer/


   <anssik> Gyroscope - [24]https://w3c.github.io/gyroscope/


     [24] https://w3c.github.io/gyroscope/


   <anssik> Magnetometer - [25]https://w3c.github.io/magnetometer/

     [25] https://w3c.github.io/magnetometer/


   <anssik> Orientation Sensor - [26]https://w3c.github.io/

   orientation-sensor/

     [26] https://w3c.github.io/orientation-sensor/


   anssik: the CR scope is clear
   … I went through the CR requirements in the Process
   … we have requested and received wide review

   <anssik> must show that the specification has met all Working
   Group requirements, or explain why the requirements have
   changed or been deferred,

   <anssik> [27]https://w3c.github.io/sensors/usecases


     [27] https://w3c.github.io/sensors/usecases


   <anssik> [28]https://w3c.github.io/motion-sensors/


     [28] https://w3c.github.io/motion-sensors/


   anssik: based on my assessment, the specs meet the requirements
   set forth in the DAS WG Charter
   … and satisfy Sensor Use Cases as demonstrated in Motion
   Sensors Explainer

   <anssik> must document changes to dependencies during the
   development of the specification,

   <anssik> must document how adequate implementation experience
   will be demonstrated,

   anssik: see changes to dependencies in the issue
   … we have test suites and preliminary implementation reports

   <anssik> Propose: The CR exit criterion is two interoperable
   deployed implementations of each feature.

   <anssik> must specify the deadline for comments, which must be
   at least four weeks after publication, and should be longer for
   complex documents,

   anssik: CR exit criteria means "when are we ready to move to
   the next stage (PR)?"

   <anssik> Proposal: This Candidate Recommendation is expected to
   advance to Proposed Recommendation no earlier than [six weeks
   after its publication].

   <anssik> must show that the specification has received wide
   review,

   <anssik> Wide review received, see tracker [29]https://
   github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/299

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/sensors/issues/299


   anssik: we will use six weeks for the deadline for comments,
   because there're multiple specs

   <anssik> may identify features in the document as "at risk".
   These features may be removed before advancement to Proposed
   Recommendation without a requirement to publish a new Candidate
   Recommendation.

   <anssik> Proposal: No features are marked as 'at-risk'.

   anssik: "at risk" means if you're not confident whether a
   feature will be in the final recommendation, you can mark it
   "at risk" and remove it before PR
   … I don't identify such features in the sensors specs
   … I'll send a Call for Consensus for the CR

   Mikhail_Pozdnyakov: for Chrome implementation we don't need
   throw exception [when screen coordinate system is not
   supported]

Rechartering

   anssik: W3C Management (hopefully) reviewed the draft charter
   yesterday
   … do you have more info, xfq?

   xfq: not currently, will check.

AOB

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2018 15:02:10 UTC