W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > June 2016

Minutes for 22 June 2016

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:49:20 +0100
Message-Id: <EFEA4C63-A23E-4D55-98C8-14F0950623F8@w3.org>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
See: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-wot-minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-wot-minutes.html>

                            Web of Things IG

22 Jun 2016

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-wot-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Daniel_Peintner, Toru_Kawaguchi, Kaz, Sebastian_Kaebisch

   Regrets
   Chair
          Matthias

   Scribe
          Dave

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]status updates
         2. [5]WG Charter Roadmap
         3. [6]Plugfest preparation
         4. [7]Any other business
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <kaz_> [ present now: Kaz, Dave, Michael, Daniel, Darko, Joerg,
   Kazuaki, Matthias, Pankesh, Takuki, Toru, Yingying ]

   <scribe> scribenick: dsr

status updates

   Daniel: I noticed that there are still some open issues in the
   old charter space, so we should clean these up.

   Matthias: what space?

   <dape> see [10]https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/charter-drafts/

   Sebastian: ….

   Matthias: we need to close our issues and remove the old draft

   Kaz: we can add a status note to the old draft to point people
   to the new charter
   ... we can simply close the issues, right?

   Matthias: Sebastian, you could close them as a lot of them are
   yours, right?

   I will ask Kaz to help with this

   Kaz: I wanted to mention the status of the IG charter review

   <kaz_> [11]ac review results (member-only)

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/wot-ig-2016/results

   Kaz: So far we have 5 reviews and we need to get a lot more,
   and I want some help with reaching out

   Matthias: so this is something for everyone in the IG to follow
   through on.

   <scribe> ACTION: Joerg to email the IG list to ask people to
   contact their AC Reps to respond to the IG charter AC Review
   [recorded in
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-wot-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Email the ig list to ask people
   to contact their ac reps to respond to the ig charter ac review
   [on Joerg Heuer - due 2016-06-29].

WG Charter Roadmap

   Joerg: in Montreal I had some discussion with Jeff Jaffe (W3C
   CEO) on a roadmap for preparation of a WoT WG

   (Joerg projects a slide with the roadmap)

   He talks us through the roadmap

   We had discussions in May on the draft charter. In June the
   idea is to agree on integration of comments by other
   stakeholders.

   The roadmap also covers a milestone for the current practices
   document in the run up to Beijing

   We’re also working on a public call for implementations.
   Daniel, can you give a status update on that?

   Daniel: we sent that out and are collecting material on the
   wiki.

   <dape> [13]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Implementations

     [13] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Implementations

   There are 2 more I will add later today

   The deadline for final IG comments on the WG charter is 22nd
   June.

   The idea is to encourage a peer to peer discussion with
   external contacts on the WG charter

   This is expected to continue for 4 to 5 weeks

   <kaz> [ present+ Carsten, Frank, Katsuyoshi, Masato ]

   In July, we want to record the outcome of the plugfest in
   Beijing, and to integrate comments into the WG charter.

   In August, we want to finalize the WG charter and get it ready
   for AC Review in September

   The aim is to have the WG launched six weeks or so after the AC
   Review starts

   Joerg: any comments?

   Dave: we’re missing milestones for the work on use case
   requirements and tech landscape

   we need to document and encourage discussion on technologies
   which isn’t happening in the current practices doc

   Matthias: we wanted to have public releases for these documents
   to show companies

   I understand that we’re ready to do this for the architecture
   document and to then work on a more detailed architecture in
   the WG

   Dave: We’ve been operating since the start of 2015, and it is
   kind of weird that we’ve not yet published any reports

   We need to identify editors and then to trigger a call for
   comments on publishing a snap shot of the document as IG notes.
   This could last a week, and result in a formal resolution in
   the next IG call

   <mkovatsc>
   [14]http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html

     [14] http://w3c.github.io/wot/charters/wot-ig-2016.html

   Matthias: we have editors so that’s ok

   Matthias summarises the editors involved, some of whom aren’t
   on the call today

   <inserted> kaz: I agree what you're saying is important, but
   we're now discussing "WG Charter Roadmap". So we should talk
   about IG document timeline later separately, shoulnd't we?

   Joerg: we need a clear understanding of what needs to be done

   Kaz: can we defer the discussion of the publication of IG
   reports in a later agendum?

   Joerg: we need to add the documents we plan to publish to the
   roadmap

   Kaz: can we split the roadmap into one for the WG and another
   for the IG?

   Dave summarises the short term for the IG rechartering process
   and the need for discussion on what’s missing

   Daniel: how are we going to publish the roadmap?

   We need to provide roadmaps for the IG and the WG

   Matthias: agreed that it should be publicly accessible, perhaps
   the wiki?

   Daniel: my preference is for github for issue tracking

   Matthias: the issues will be about the work, and not the
   roadmap so much

   <kaz> +1 to put the roadmap on the wiki and manage issues using
   github

   Matthias: so let’s publish the roadmap on the wiki

   Kaz: given that the roadmap has us closing the WG charter
   today, we should discuss this now. I chatted with Dave and
   others and we agree that we need to add content for the
   relationships to W3C and external groups ASAP. Also we should
   review the draft charter specifically from the viewpoint of how
   to handle "semantic" and "abstraction".

   Joerg: the idea for the current milestone is to be ready for
   outreach to external stakeholders.

   I will update the roadmap to clarify this goal

   <joerg> Rephrase to [Milestone-Jun-4] Deadline for final
   comments on WG Charter for the purpose of P2P review comments
   (22nd of June)

   Kaz: In that case, you actually mean we'll discuss the draft
   charter during the Beijing F2F as well.

   We should add a milestone in early September on IG release of
   the WG charter for AC Review

   <joerg> Add –[Milestone-Aug/Sep-2] Release Charter for AC
   review

   Kaz: we should clarify the timing for bringing the WG Charter
   to W3M approval for the AC Review

   Matthias: we expect to make changes following discussion in
   Beijing, and taking into account feedback from external
   stakeholders.

   Dave: after that we need a IG Resolution on seeking W3M
   Approval for initiating the AC Review

   Kaz: if we want to review the WG charter in Lisbon, we don’t
   want to seek W3M approval before then

   In other words we should have the resolution in Lisbon on Sep
   19

   Toru asks for clarification of the process

   Kaz: the IG resolves to seek W3M approval for starting an AC
   Review. W3M then needs review from some W3M Members, resulting
   in some changes, and then W3M will approve the start of the
   review, which is then normally 4 week in duration.

   Toru: is there a way to accelerate this?

   Maybe we should start outreach to stakeholders in July

   Kaz: some of us have already started outreach with key
   stakeholders, but AC review will take 4 weeks in any way.

   If we want to accelerate the timescale we can bring forward the
   IG resolution to end of August with the aim of starting the AC
   Review in mid September

   Joerg: the stakeholder feedback is very important

   and this may alter the timeline according to what we’re told

   <mkovatsc> Proposal: bilateral outreach now, detailed review
   and issue collection in Beijing, start resolving issues and
   group resolution 2 weeks after Beijing, start W3C mgmt review
   directly so it is done at TPAC, start AC Review at TPAC for
   more promotion

   Matthias: we should start outreach now and collect the issues
   in Beijing and resolve then soon after

   Dave recaps how we handled this for the IG charter

   Matthias: we can use TPAC to reach out to the AC

   Dave: Joerg could perhaps briefly talk about this during the AC
   meeting at TPAC

   Joerg: so I should ask for an AC agendum on the WoT IG AC
   Review

   Kaz: we should also use the plenary day for outreach

   Dave: indeed

   Nimura-san: we will discuss the comments in Beijing, right?

   Matthias: yes

   <knimura> just use f2f for comments resolution

   Matthias: 2 issues open, one on capitalisation that I will deal
   with and another on being more neutral in respect to protocols

   Daniel: we can remove the names of protocols in the WG charter

   <kaz> [15]GitHub Issues

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues

   Sebastian: for security I can ask Oliver for rewording

   Matthias: Oliver’s text was hard for non-experts to understand

   Sebastian: we need to be neutral and try to find descriptions
   that reflect that

   Matthias: the security section is the one that is most effected
   ... you need to give some concrete examples, e.g. in the
   introduction

   Sebastian: in the introduction that’s fine, but we should be
   very careful in the scope section

   Kaz: it should be okay to include examples so long as we made
   clear that these are just examples and not a prescriptive list

   Matthias: I will check the wording on this

Plugfest preparation

   Matthias: we had the document freeze but there were a few
   things missing

   We still need an explanation on security.

   <mkovatsc>
   [16]http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices-be
   ijing-2016.html

     [16] http://w3c.github.io/wot/current-practices/wot-practices-beijing-2016.html

   Daniel: we will include the links we had from the Sophia
   Antiplois F2F

   Matthias: I created a copy of the document, see above link.
   Please review this and provide feedback on what’s missing

   I also want to talk about discovery. We want to use a
   repository. There is a possibility for experimenting with ideas
   from the IETF and OCF

   Who has used the repository?

   Daniel: we have in the EU ThingWeb project

   Matthias: would you be able to adapt the process quickly, so
   that it aligns with the CORE WG resource discovery approach

   Daniel: yes this should be ok

   Darko describes some details …

   Matthias: perhaps some others using the client we provided?

   Perhaps we can look at who was involved in the previous face to
   face meetings and check with them?

   Matthias: I will update the current practices document to
   include text on how the repository is supposed to work

   <kaz> [ present+ Johannes ]

   Yingying tells us that we can’t use a router, but will be able
   to use a static block of IP addresses

   <yingying> yes. That's what I got from hotel IT person.

   Matthias: we need to assign static IP addresses, and there is
   not need for a wifi password of HTTP based credentials in the
   wiki, I can assign you an address when you register.

   Michael will only be able to participate remotely

   Michael: I will be in Berlin, but can’t make it to Beijing

   Matthias: one of us can carry a router as a backup

   <mkovatsc>
   [17]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_Chin
   a,_Beijing#Participation

     [17] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Participation

   Matthias: we will list all of the IP settings on the wiki

   Please enter what ever you’re bringing to Beijing in the wiki
   (see link above)

   <dape>
   [18]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_Chin
   a,_Beijing#Requirements

     [18] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_July_2016,_China,_Beijing#Requirements

   Daniel: we should encourage people to provide more details on
   their requirements, e.g. whether you need to add an external
   service so that we can test it.

   Matthias: this especially applies to Panasonic

   Toru: for security reasons we don’t want to include the IP
   address on the wiki

   Matthias: fine, just contact Daniel so we can update the test
   tool

   Toru: we use skype for business, and would like to use that in
   Beijing

   Daniel: that is hard for us to test

   Kaz: and we can try webex as well

   Kaz asks Yinying if she has tried skype and webex from the
   hotel network?

   Yingying: we can try that tomorrow

Any other business

   Sebastian: just a reminder to Dave and Louay on web sockets and
   Bluetooth Smart where we’re expecting pull requests

   Dave to chase Louay on that

   Matthias: ok that’s it for today, bye!

   <scribe> scribe: Dave

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Joerg to email the IG list to ask people to
   contact their AC Reps to respond to the IG charter AC Review
   [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/22-wot-minutes.html#action01]

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


—
   Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org <mailto:dsr@w3.org>>
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2016 14:49:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 22 June 2016 14:49:31 UTC