- 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