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

[wot] minutes - 2 November 2016

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:52:18 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9W9OwnAUF7gc5MQxW2AJ8ghzzzN0sf5pis2d9gWWM51oQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-wot-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, McCool!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                             WoT IG Meeting

03 Nov 2016

   [2]Agenda

      [2]
https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/IG_WebConf#Agenda_of_next_WoT_IG_WebConf:_19_October_2016

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Dave_Raggett, Michael_McCool,
          Daniel_Peintner, Frank_Reusch, Kazuaki_Nimura,
          Kirby_Shabaga, Masato_Ohura, Matthias_Kovatsch,
          Sebastian_Kaebisch, Keiichi_Tokuyama, Uday_Davuluru,
          Takeshi_Yamada, Yingying_Chen, Yongjing_Zhan, Ryan_Ware

   Regrets
   Chair
          Matthias, Yongjing

   Scribe
          McCool

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Agenda
         2. [5]WG Charter update
         3. [6]OCF Liaison
         4. [7]TD Restructuring update
         5. [8]February f2f
         6. [9]Security TF launch
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     * [11]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <kaz> scribenick: McCool

Agenda

   meeting delay due to timezone change

   today most important agenda is update on chartering

   task forces, then ocf liaison

   and then f2f logistics

   delayed in email discussions; need a bit more time to reply to
   comments

WG Charter update

   ben from mozilla comments on list... but AC rep

   about scripting api

   should respond... but separate from chartering discussion

   may not be able to convince ben... but should respond for
   others on the list

   but need to phrase response carefully

   kaz: we should focus on AC review part; replies to list should
   be from group

   dave, kaz: wendy was leading discussion with google, mozilla,
   need to sync with her

   mccool: perhaps we can delegate to a couple of people from
   scripting API

   kaz: can have wendy review our response

   matt: don't really need to involve wendy

   all: johannes and matthias to handle as delegates

   RESOLUTION: will delegate communication to Ben from Mozilla on
   list to Johannes and Matthias

   <rrware> Sorry folks. I have a hard stop because of the time
   change. Put the plugfest logistics on the agenda for next week
   and I'll have an update then.

   mccool: suggest that we finalize and release "response"
   document

   (some trouble with WebEx connection for a while)

   mccool: BTW, I just sent out the release candidate for the AC
   response, check your email

   people to spend 3-5 minutes reviewing to make sure they are
   happy with it

   <dsr>
   [12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-ig/2016Nov/
   0004.html

     [12]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-ig/2016Nov/0004.html

   <dsr> Michael’s Release candidate for WoT WG response to AC

   mccool: discussing response release candidate. deleted
   "extension point" section of summary in first section

   also Dave mentions there was a suggestion by PLH to delete
   roadmap deliverables

   <kaz> kaz: we should handle that suggestion separately from the
   AC review response. right?

   <kaz> dsr: right

   mccool: suggest handle roadmap issue later

   <kaz> (mccool adds edits to the text directly on his mailer
   software)

   dave: add paragraph about fact that we can't magically make
   devices secure

   matt: asked to have fuzz testing, etc removed; don't want to
   commit to particular approaches at this point

   put back in, but with a qualification: "to be considered"

   McCool: add issues to github for changes mentioned in response

   other issue is roadmap dates; maybe remove the later ones where
   we are just guessing

   mccool: suggests we check with wendy first
   ... will at least put issue on issue tracker

OCF Liaison

   mccool: ocf liaison possible, but not with normal ocf
   arrangement as it assumes NDAs, which W3C does not do

   we will have to figure something else out

   also, will be giving a presentation to OCF next Thursday on
   what we are working on, and what the charter proposes

   will draft by this Friday, send around for people to look at
   over the weekend, and discuss next meeting

   mccool: will start with whatever we have, but update it as
   necessary

   <yongjing> i have some short update on oneM2M LS as well

   matt: need memo of understanding (information liaison)

   yongjing: similar issues with oneM2M; not NDA issues, but the
   fact is they are not a "legal entity"
   ... proposal to have a "soft" liaison agreement; non-binding,
   non-formal

   yongjing is working on some wording for a liaison statement

   probably done by early december

   mccool: perhaps we should proceed in parallel, compare, make
   sure they are consistent
   ... problem is that W3C is not a "legal entity" either...

   <wseltzer> [W3C is a Consortium of member organizations and
   Hosts, governed by Process]

   <kaz> kaz: don't worry too much

   <kaz> ... there are two options, MoU and simple liaison

   <kaz> ... simple liaison is just clarifying the main contact
   from the both sides

   McCool: are there any templates?

   Dave: template based on OPC, etc

   McCool: we can START with a simple liason, MOU needs concrete
   definition of collaboraive work

TD Restructuring update

   seba: two options for next TD meeting, email, please respond;
   daylight savings time issues

February f2f

   mccool: f2f, Ryan working it with two Intel admins, looking
   into options; doing it at Intel site may require additional
   security

   even if we can't do it there, Intel can help in finding an
   alternative site in the area

   do want to nail down the dates

   right now Feb 6-9

   full day in the beginning, to 4pm on the last day

   also need one extra day before plugfest to set up

   <yongjing> can we do Tue to Fri? not sure if Mon to Thu is some
   hard convention of W3C :)

   number of people: approx 50

   but... security may cost more on sunday

   so... setup on the 6th, actual plugfest 7-10

   mccool: will send email around to group proposing date change,
   will put logistics notes in the wiki

Security TF launch

   mccool: Ryan and I will create proposal in github, send around
   invite to mailing list, doodle for timeslot

   [ adjourn ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [13]will delegate communication to Ben from Mozilla on list
       to Johannes and Matthias

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
    1.147 ([15]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/11/03 07:47:18 $

     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 07:53:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:08 UTC