- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 07:05:54 +0900
- To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/03/09-wot-marketing-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
WoT Marketing
09 March 2021
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Marketing_WebConf#Feb_23.2C_2021
[3] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/09-wot-marketing-irc
Attendees
Present
Coralie_Mercier, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner,
Jack_Dickinson, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura,
Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Philipp_Blum,
Xiaoqian_Wu, Junde_Yhi
Regrets
-
Chair
Sebastian
Scribe
kaz
Contents
1. [4]Guests
2. [5]prev minutes
3. [6]Basic marketing policies for publication
4. [7]PR 134
5. [8]Multiple language support of the video + alternative
publication platform
6. [9]Summary of resolutions
Meeting minutes
Guests
Sebastian: Junde Yhi, who volunteered to work on the Chinese
captions
Xiaoqian: Xiaoqian Wu, W3C Beihang site manager
prev minutes
[10]Mar-2
[10] https://www.w3.org/2021/03/02-wot-marketing-minutes.html
Sebastian: (goes through the minutes)
… new WoT welcome page and the explainer video published
… working on blob post
… PR 134 on TFs
… we'll look into the detail today
… any objections?
(none)
approved
Basic marketing policies for publication
Sebastian: our policy to publish information publicly like the
WoT Welcome page
… several options
… Marketing TF to entitled to make updates
… or getting back to the main call
… is clear Resolution needed every time?
… we need a good guideline here
Lagally: outbound messaging is always sensitive
… Marketing TF is a subgroup of the WoT IG
… so it would be dangerous in case the intention of the whole
group were not reflected
… we've been careful to handle our meeting minutes as well
… thorough review before publishing them
Sebastian: ok
… how should we improve the procedure then?
… for example, we've been mentioning the Marketing TF's plan
during the main calls
… should we record our decision using "RESOLUTION" as well?
Lagally: for significant things, we should do so
… there could be some "border" cases, though
… specifically, if we make a completely new change, we need to
record it clearly
Sebastian: maybe there was some confusion
McCool: would agree we should have made a resolution for the
big release like the one we made the other day
… but would also suggest we ask people to review the content
within some specific review period, e.g., 1 week
Philipp: also mentioned that W3C is a bit slow about marketing
… can be problematic to output marketing for the standards
… so would like to agree with McCool
… one week review period would be OK, even though it isn't
ideal to move forward fast.
Daniel: agree
… 1 week might be too long but OK
Daniel: note that if there is any problem, we should/can
improve it
… don't have to be perfect
Lagally: tx for your hard work first
… one week review period proposed by McCool is fine
Kaz: we're getting a conclusion while I've been waiting :)
McCool: another question is how to handle the PR and branch to
merge
… also how to run the review
Sebastian: it's a generic question
McCool: what is the current process?
Sebastian: the PR is merged to the "master" branch and it will
be applied directly
McCool: not merge PR until the review is done
McCool: we can decide which is major and which is minor
… we should be conservative to manage the repo
… nice to have a preview, though
Daniel: can look into it
Cristiano: this is a right way
… but we have great features to review the PR
… every PR should be open until the review is done
Kaz: to see previews, we might want to have several sub repos
… and copy the contents from those sub repos to the main
wot-marketing repo after the content was approved
McCool: Marketing TF can categorize the PRs into major and
minor
… and major ones need detailed review
Lagally: +1
Sebastian: we'll use two labels, "major" and "minor"
… major requires one week review and resolution at the main
call
… minor requires one-day review
Cristiano: possibly up to 2 weeks?
McCool: yeah
… possible one week delay
Lagally: editorial fixes like typo can be handled quickly
McCool: so we should use three levels, editorial, minor and
major
… editorial means typos, etc.
<cris> +1
McCool: another question is twitter, etc.
… would propose 3-day review
Philipp: if we need to get approval, the good timing would be
gone
… I think Twitter retweets etc. should be handled by some
people trusted by the group. They should have some restrictions
on that, of course.
<cris> +1
McCool: yeah, one week should be too long for that
… one day review for twitter
… one week review for Web pages
Sebastian: (add those proposed three labels on the agenda wiki)
McCool: "editorial changes" to be used bug fixes
Sebastian: is that ok?
Lagally: should call it "bug fix"
McCool: and twitter news for one day announcement in the
mailinglist
Lagally: which list?
Kaz: Marketing work belongs to the IG, so should go to the IG
list, but can be CCed to the WG list
McCool: ok
Sebastian: (record it on the agenda)
major changes: PRs (e.g., new page content or new web pages,
Blog Post) needs 1 week preview time of the WoT group (will be
announced in the main call)
minor changes: PRs (e.g., small extension) will be also
announced latest one day before the main call
bug fixes: PRs (e.g., typos, links update) can be merged
directly
twitter news: one day announcement in the mailing list (wot-ig
& wot-wg)
we will introduce three labels minor / major / editorial
]]
Resolution: we'll use the above as our policy from now on
PR 134
[11]PR 134 - Webpage: Adding TF info to WG and IG overview
pages
[11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/pull/134
Lagally: the table is not really great, though :)
Sebastian: can be improved later
McCool: is this a major change? or minor
Sebastian: should be minor
McCool: ok
<cris> +1 for minor
McCool: we should fix the table style before merging
McCool: can we fix it before the main call tomorrow?
Lagally: will try
<cris> +1 for labels
Daniel: wondering whether to use, "Task Force" or "Taskforce"
McCool: we use "TF" as the acronym, so should use "Task Force"
… let's put a label
Multiple language support of the video + alternative publication
platform
Sebastian: two topics here
[12]issue 141 - Multiple language support for the animation
video
[12] https://github.com/w3c/wot-marketing/issues/141
Sebastian: Junde Yhi has volunteered to work on the Chinese
captions
Junde: very interested in this
Sebastian: tx!
McCool: fantastic
… should we look for another caption for traditional Chinese?
… also Junde, can you work with the GitHub repo?
Junde: think so
Kaz: if needed, you can send it by email to me and I can
install it for you
Sebastian: we have Italian captions as well
Xiaoqian: happy to have Chinese captions as well
… regarding the traditional captions, we have contacts in
Taiwan
<sebastian> [13]https://www.w3.org/2021/02/
wot-explainer-video.html
[13] https://www.w3.org/2021/02/wot-explainer-video.html
<mlagally> I will drop off for the use cases call
Kaz: regarding the video server, we've already installed the
explainer video on the W3C side as above
<koalie> [I need to go to my next meeting too :/]
<koalie> [Coralie departs]
Xiaoqian: these days bilibili is more popular for younger
people in China
Sebastian: unfortunately, we need to continue the discussion
next time...
… please join the next call
Xiaoqian: ok
[adjourned]
Summary of resolutions
1. [14]we'll use the above as our policy from now on
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[15]scribe.perl version 127 (Wed Dec 30 17:39:58 2020 UTC).
[15] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2021 22:06:02 UTC