18 June 2021


AndyS, gatemezing, gkellogg, james__, olaf, pchampin, TallTed, thomas
olaf, pchampin

Meeting minutes

Announcements and newcomers

pchampin: no newcomers
… announcements anyone?
… none

<gkellogg> regrets for next week

open actions

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction

pchampin: only one open action
… it has been completed

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter

pchampin: initiate a github repo for charter for future WG
… simply took the charter template, currently a lot of boiler plate stuff
… plus a bit of content
… feedback welcome
… currently framed as: writing the new version of RDF RECs
… but everything is open at this stage
… let#s discuss among us first
… and later share with the broader community

gkellogg: deliverable list not complete
… serialization syntaxes not complete
… long list of specs
… which will be controversial

pchampin: it's work in progress
… out-of-scope section is there
… essentially saying that our CG report is a patch on several different specs
… scope of it should be kept tightly focused
… One possibility mentioned in the draft charter:
… by updating the specs, we are making use of a new feature of the W3C process
… namely, documents are "living documents"
… that can serve as an argument to keep the scope focused

AndyS: What does it mean to have a "living standard"?

pchampin: it means: a REC can be marked to be open to new features
… which does not require to go through the whole process (working drafts->last draft -> etc)
… makes the process more lightweight

Community Group Process

pchampin: Did homework regarding the proposed transition to a final report
… CGs are not WGs

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/community/about/faq/

pchampin: but still the process is a bit more formalized than thought
… two thing:
… first, we are making a mistake with the list of contributors
… contributors to a CG report must agree to a license agreement
… by joining the CG
… While that's the case for the editors and most of the authors, it's not the case for most of the contributors listed on the draft report
… easiest way forward: rename that section to Acknowledgements

<pchampin> PROPOSED: rename the 'contributors' section to 'acknowledgements', to avoid confusion

<TallTed> +1 though I don't think this requires group resolution

pchampin: remains in the same place within the doc

james__: believes that he had to agree the W3C terms
… when joining the CG

pchampin: maybe that was because of a PR

pchampin: we may also question who is in which section
… however, the issue at hand is about the third section

AndyS: doesn't that make it more a bit more complicated?

pchampin: when we go to final report, the license changes
… currently, everyone is giving license for their own contributions

TallTed: no issue about being on the calls etc, but about what they have put into the text
… we may copy boiler plate text from some other similar report

pchampin: hoping that the current boiler plate text should be enough
… currently just proposing to change the header of the third group of people mentioned on the report
… checking whether it's okay with everyone to rename the header

<pchampin> PROPOSED: rename the 'contributors' section to 'acknowledgement'

<pchampin> +1

<thomas> +1

<AndyS> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<olaf> +1 (Acknowledgements ;)

<gatemezing> +1

<james__> 1+

<TallTed> +1 +s

<pchampin> APPROVED: rename the 'contributors' section to 'acknowledgements'

pchampin: now to the second point in this context

<gatemezing> And Bob?

pchampin: some of the people under "authors" are not in the CG
… Peter and Bryan
… emailed Peter to asked to join the CG

gkellogg: believe Peter's affiliation has changed

pchampin: Bryan?

olaf: I'm still in contact with Bryan, I can ask him

AndyS: isn't it important which member orga has signed up?
… some other affiliation has changed

pchampin: another thing:
… got confirmation that "final" in final report doesn't have to final

<gatemezing> Was there a link to sign up to this group? I don't remeber ....

AndyS: actually, you can join a CG as an individual

pchampin: final report
… some more hoops to jump through
… license of the final report is slightly different (final license agreement)
… an email will be sent to all participants of the CG asking them to explicitly agree to that final license agreement
… Now, there are a lot of people in the CG who are not involved in this work
… hence, it may be a bit strange for them
… Other issue: the final report will end up on the W3C pages
… which will make it a bit more complicated if there will be another "final" version later
… The final report may be published even before everyone has signed that final license agreement


gatemazing: don't see the point about being reluctant about putting this on a W3C page

pchampin: didn't mean not to do that ever
… but still better to wait until we are more convinced that things don't need to be changed
… reluctant to end up with many "final" version

AndyS: another reason for pushing towards final was
… to be able to mention it in the charter
… but that doesn't seem to be needed anymore

pchampin: right
… the LD license WG charter also points to draft reports
… so, that's not a blocking point

Publishing a new report

pchampin: do we agree that it's a good time to publish another version?
… maybe not yet marked as "final"
… we have some new content, plus several new parts about controversial content
… technical work quite mature now
… probably a good time now to have a new timestamped version

<olaf> +1

<AndyS> +1 to publishing as a draft

<pchampin> PROPOSED: publish the current editor's draft as a new draft report

<gkellogg> +1

<pchampin> +1

<thomas> +1

<olaf> +1

<AndyS> +1

<james__> +1

<gatemezing> +1

<TallTed> +1

<pchampin> APPROVED: publish the current editor's draft as a new draft report

pchampin: good, will take care of publishing it
… will create PR with the new version

Action: pchampin to make a PR for the new public draft

pchampin: and give some time for us to react


pchampin: more convenient to have these calls less frequent
… e.g., every other week
… also, considering that the summer break is coming
… any objections?

<gatemezing> +1

<TallTed> semiweekly == twice a week; biweekly == fortnightly

gatemezing: regarding summer, should we have a break / a month without calls ?

pchampin: we have to discuss

<AndyS> +1 les quinze jours

pchampin: not clear how things will go in August
… generally, yes, we may expect a longer break during summer

<pchampin> PROPOSED: have our calls every 2 weeks, starting now

<pchampin> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<gatemezing> +1

<AndyS> +1

<TallTed> +1

<thomas> 0

<olaf> +1

<james__> +0

<pchampin> APPROVED: have our calls every 2 weeks, starting now

gkellogg: August is typically lightly attended
… maybe we can survey who will be around when

<thomas> pause in august

pchampin: any other ideas how to proceed during summer?
… perhaps we can come back to this question in a future call

Open-ended discussions

pchampin: any other business?

thomas: about my proposal from last week
… my idea to remove it and create several separate PRs

pchampin: took liberty to mark thomas' PR as a draft PR
… which indicates that it is not meant to be merged

thomas: sounds good

pchampin: to keep the discussion focused it's more practical to have smaller PRs
… you can still mark them as draft

thomas: new branch needed for that?

pchampin: yes, always a new branch in your own forked repo

thomas: okay.
… try to put something together for the next meeting in two weeks

pchampin: anything else anyone?
… nope -- we can finish early ;-)

<gatemezing> Thanks pchampin .. thanks all

Summary of action items

  1. pchampin to make a PR for the new public draft
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 142 (Tue Jun 1 16:59:13 2021 UTC).