Bugs

Clarke: review bugs and first draft of reqs doc -- anything else?

http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF#Bugs

Clarke: no new bugs recorded -- any new ones?
... any status changes on the 7 bugs we are tracking?

giuseppe: some comments on one of the bugs

Clarke: anything we want to cover on those bugs?

guiseppe: not for now

ADB requirements

Clarke: just sent ADB reqs doc -- this will be submitted to HTML Media TF
... follows the MPTF template. not on a common repository yet, sent as an enclosure
... GoToMeeting to follow along
... two main things to cover today ...

… reqs listed form our dashboard page ...

… section for more comments -- not filled in yet ...

… section on security and next steps ...

… part to expand on today is terminology.

Clarke: need to get additional terms that need to be brought up in the doc
... any terms that are related to ADB that need to be added?

<kaz> initial draft of MPTF Requirements for Adaptive Bit Rate Streaming

Clarke: we could add a definition for ADB itself
... probably "manifest file"

giuseppe: list the open sources for this document as well

Clarke: few definitions from the proposal itself
... "common time base" ?
... what about "trick play"?

John_Simmons: for a doc intended to be requirements, any definitions not around objects you are trying to articulate are not required
... a lot of things mentioned will fall out of the proposals created and attempts to create a solution for the HTML WG
... main thing is to get the reqs clear

Clarke: get things specific to a proposal and those should be in the proposal
... what about "user agent"?

John_Simmons: this is a well define term in the HTML WG -- does not need to be defined

Clarke: any other terms to define?
... please take a look at the TOC and see if anything is there

<giuseppe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2012Apr/att-0007/MPTF_ADB_Requirements3.html

Clarke: <reading the TOC>

joesteele: definition of "track"?

Duncan: authors of the spec has Adrian instead of Kilroy

Clarke: any other comment on the outline?
... back to the agenda

new bugs or TF items?

Clarke: anything else to discuss here?

John_Simmons: the TF has been proposed in HTML WG, comments have been posted, similar to previous discussion there are people opposed to there even being a TF ...

… I encourage people interested in seeing this work to express their support for creation of this TF ...

Mark_Vickers: do we respond to the CFC?

John_SImmons: yes - just respond that we support the creation of this task force

Clarke: I thought we had gone through this -- what determines whether a TF gets formed? simple majority? feedback? ...

… how do we know when enough support has been given?

John_Simmons: it is not a forgone conclusion that TF will be created

<Clarke> ?q

<glenn> there aren't really any rules

<glenn> it is a matter of the chairs to determine consensus

kaz: consensus is the process

<glenn> consensus does not mean unanimity

kaz: it would be useful to send out supporting message

Clarke: seems unlikely to be agreement. does a vote happen?

kaz: yes -- final resolution is a vote

<glenn> no vote will occur if the chairs feel there is no need for it

Clarke: companies get to vote?
... expressing support is useful and encouraged, but final decision is subject to ambiguity

<glenn> the response date already passed

Mark_Vickers: I am going to respond today and I encourage others

<glenn> and it only asked for objections

Clarke: any other discussion?
... any other topics?
... short meeting today. Will update the docs and send out the links for review.

<kaz> [ adjourned ]