Re: What to do with WoT Profiles 1.0

Just a reminder that there is still no resolution to this question.

Thank you to everyone who has responded so far, and there are open issues
<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues> and pull requests
<https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pulls> to address some of the specific
feedback that has come out of that discussion (some of which has now been
resolved), but we still don't have an answer to the high level question.

I understand there is currently discussion about how to "revitalise" the
Profile task force, but the task force can't really make any progress until
a wider consensus is reached on whether to continue with the specification
in its current form.  Until that question is answered Profile task force
meetings seem fairly pointless, which might be why so few people are
attending them.

I think we need to hear a wider set of opinions on the two options proposed
(or alternative proposals) before we know which to put forward as a formal
resolution:

*Option 1*
> Agree as a Working Group that for Profiles 1.0 profile specifications are
> allowed to define protocol bindings that go beyond what can currently be
> described with binding templates, as a more prescriptive but unambiguous
> option to guarantee interoperability between greenfield implementations.
> Publish a Candidate Recommendation, publicise a request for
> implementations, and if there are sufficient implementations then proceed
> to Proposed Recommendation.
>
> *Option 2*
> Decide now that profiles must only constrain what is already possible with
> binding templates in TD 1.1, discontinue the approach taken in WoT Profiles
> 1.0, publish the current text as a Working Group Note and start work on a
> Profiles 2.0 specification which takes a different approach.


Kind regards

Ben

On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 13:39, Luca Barbato <luca.barbato@luminem.it> wrote:

> On 29/04/24 12:03, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
> > Hi Luca, Ben, Ege and all,
> >
> > Given the following:
> >
> > 1. It's the Golden Week this week and many of the Japanese
> >     participants (including myself) can't join this discussion.
>
> Being an email brainstorming (more or less), I hope we won't need
> immediate response from members, hopefully once you are back from the
> Golden Week we'll have a good summary for everybody to discuss :)
>   > 2. This discussion is getting very long and it seems to me it would be
> >     difficult to solve the problem via email.
> >
> > 3. We've already started to discuss what to be handled by the WoT Profile
> >     specification during the Pofile calls.
> >
> > I strongly would suggest we talk about the topic here, What to do with
> > WoT Profile 1.0", during the upcoming Profiles calls. Maybe it might
> > make sense to have additional dedicated virtual f2f meeting for this
> > topic also.
>
> I had few voice call on it and I'm trying to keep notes of everything
> being said, email threads make my life simpler with summarizing, we can
> continue a bit the discussion on the issues Ben opened or off-list in
> case the noise is a bit too much.
>
> lu
>