[Scripting] minutes - 6 December 2021

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2021/12/06-wot-script-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                           WoT Scripting API

06 December 2021

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#6_December_2021
      [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/12/06-wot-script-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, Kaz_Ashimura,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima

   Regrets
          Zoltan

   Chair
          Daniel

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

    1. [4]Minutes
    2. [5]Decision process
    3. [6]Meeting cancellations
    4. [7]PRs
         1. [8]PR 353
         2. [9]PR 356
    5. [10]Issues
         1. [11]Issue 342
         2. [12]Issue 355

Meeting minutes

  Minutes

   [13]Nov-29

     [13] https://www.w3.org/2021/11/29-wot-script-minutes.html

   Daniel: let's discuss the topic on the Use Cases section later
   again
   … don't see any issues with the minutes themselves

   (no objections; minutes approved)

  Decision process

   [14]wot PR 1005 - Asynchronous Review Process for Specification
   Changes

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/1005

   Cristiano: maybe we can introduce some specific labels to
   clarify the importance of each issue/PR

   Daniel: yeah, would make sense

   Kaz: if we REALLY want and need, we can go for this
   asynchronous decision making direction
   … however, as I mentioned last week already, we should be very
   careful about this issue
   … because our basic policy for this Charter period has been
   having discussion on GitHub, then during TF calls and during
   the main call in the end for important topics like publication
   decision
   … so we should clarify what kind of issues/PRs can be handled
   by which method

   Daniel: right
   … we should continue to discuss how to deal with it

  Meeting cancellations

   Daniel: McCool suggest we cancel all the WoT calls after Dec 19
   except the main calls (and all meetings canceled after 26th)

   [15]Cancellation plan on the main wiki

     [15] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Cancellations

   Daniel: I'm OK with that plan

   Cristiano: I'm also OK

  PRs

    PR 353

   [16]PR 353 - refactor: move section "Terminology and
   conventions" right after "Conformance"

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/353

   Daniel: moving the Terminology section
   … also removing references

   Cristiano: reference for ECMAScript has some issue

   Daniel: can create another issue to address that point
   … note there is some ReSpec error about [[value]]
   … objection to merge this PR 353?

   (no objections)

   merged

    PR 356

   [17]Allow only one subscription per affordance

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/356

   Cristiano: will clean up the PR

   Daniel: if you can fix the issue with ECMAScript, that's great

   [18]Issue 358 - FIX ECMASCRIPT references

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/358

  Issues

    Issue 342

   [19]Issue 342 - Reference terminology section of the
   architecture specification

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/342

   Daniel: think this issue is already resolved

   Cristiano: what about the "Use cases" section?

   Daniel: there is a comment from Mizushima-san for another issue
   about that point
   … (adds comments)

   [20]Daniel's comments

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/342#issuecomment-986740109

    Issue 355

   [21]Issue 355 - Rename Use Cases section ?

     [21] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/355

   Daniel: Mizushima-san suggests we change the section title from
   "Use Cases" to "Features"

   Cristiano: features are about more products

   Kaz: the most important thing here is all the WoT
   Editors/Contributors having the same understanding for the
   terminologies for WoT specs including "Use cases",
   "Functionalities" and "Features" so that we can use those terms
   consistently for all the WoT spec documents

   Daniel: I'm OK with "Functionalities"

   Cristiano: I'm OK too

   Mizushima: would still prefer "Features"

   Kaz: I'm OK with either way, "Functionalities" or "Features"
   … but "Use cases" is confusing to be used to show
   functionalities withing WoT spec documents

   [adjourned]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [22]scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).

     [22] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Monday, 10 January 2022 08:24:15 UTC