- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 22:22:27 +0900
- To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9Xqx+LPF-QUOdgnxCuajmQPfBQZP=CiMYqTMUWpu3RdwA@mail.gmail.com>
available at: https://www.w3.org/2017/02/20-wot-minutes.html also as text below. Thanks, Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - WoT IG/WG - Scripting Call 20 Feb 2017 [2]Agenda [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wot-ig/2017Feb/0019.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/02/20-wot-irc Attendees Present Kaz_Ashimura, Johannes_Hund, Kazuaki_Nimura, Yingying_Chen, Zoltan_Kis Regrets Chair Johannes Scribe kaz Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Agenda 2. [6]GitHub repo 3. [7]New editor's draft 4. [8]Time for the scripting call * [9]Summary of Action Items * [10]Summary of Resolutions __________________________________________________________ Agenda jh: checks the agenda points GitHub repo zk: mentions his updates on GitHub pullrequests jh: will check that ... one question on rationale doc ... how to handle it? ... any more comments? ka: has just create a dedicated list for Editors zk: would suggest we associate GitHub messages to the list jh: will check GitHub repo and check the configuration ... for the scripting repo ... any other questions on GitHub? zk: we should wait for the editors briefing? ka: will send a reminder of that briefing meeting to the Editors list kn: focus on scripting api and current practice? jh: focus on normative documents ... but we need a rationale document ... in current practice maybe? zk: yes, we need a document on why we chose the current setting ka: if you want, we can create a separate repo kn: developers want to read WG deliverables, so having the rationale description as a part of the current document is fine jh: ok with me ... I have 2 more points ... we made some conclusions from the f2f meeting ... Results from F2F: resulting actions of consented points, volunteers to take on actions ... copying the current document to the new repos zk: IG documents belong to the IG jh: so should we create new Editor's draft? zk: would do the new work at a new place ... the IG contents have history jh: we should have one specific repo for maintenance ka: we can copy/import the old IG content to the new repo ... and after that, we can add a note saying "this content is moved to the new repo, and not maintained any more" jh: new edit should be added to the new repo ... I'm open with any proposals, though kn: should we keep the old content within the IG repo? jh: IG repo is for keeping the history ... and the new work should be done on the WG repo (separate repo) side New editor's draft zk: we need to create an Editor's draft first. right? jh: yes zk: will do the first version this week jh: tx ... we can start with some skeleton and put content later zk: yes ... and we can decide who to work for which part jh: yes, we can glow the document gradually Time for the scripting call jh: another topic is the time for this Scripting call ... do you prefer some other time? ... is the current slot acceptable? kn: fine by me jh: ok ... let's continue this slot for a while ... btw, I have actions from the f2f ... any other points for today? (none) jh: is the new webex coordinate for this call weekly? ka: yes ... and the wiki page ([11]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#W ebEx) has been also updated with the new coordinate [11] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#WebEx jh: ok [ adjourned ] Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________ Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version 1.148 ([13]CVS log) $Date: 2017/02/20 13:20:43 $ [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm [13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 20 February 2017 13:23:43 UTC