See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: cwilso
<scribe> scribenick: cwilso
<olivier> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012AprJun/0364.html
olivier: got a lot of issues submitted by Opera in the last week, want to confirm we agree on process for managing issues
olivier: main question remaining is whether the editor (or anyone) can close an issue as long as it's well-documented.
crogers: I wouldn't mind having to go into review process [e.g. "pending review" status]
olivier: you could send emails
crogers: it would be easier to just mark as pending
shepazu: I favor as little
process as possible.
... process should only be there to resolve problems
crogers: if we have hundreds of issues, I don't want to have to send emails for each resolution (That's more process)
shepazu: trying to avoid explicit process
crogers: just trying to avoid having to hand-send emails.
olivier: I don't think it is adding a process, just clarifying how we prefer to do it
roc: when an issue is filed, the tracker sends an email; why can't it just send emails when issues are closed?
shepazu: I think you can do that, I'll check.
crogers: seems like that would be spamming the list
roc: it's already spamming the list with filing new issues.
olivier: it shouldn't be that
many emails - the last week has been exceptional. I think we
should try this.
... that is, when something is closed, it sends an email.
<scribe> ACTION: shepazu to look into technical capabilities of tracker to see if it can send emails when issues are closed. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-audio-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Look into technical capabilities of tracker to see if it can send emails when issues are closed. [on Doug Schepers - due 2012-05-30].
olivier: group agendum: talked a bit on list about rechartering, still need to figure out rough milestones. How much time do we need to spend on the milestones, Doug?
shepazu: whatever you guys feel is correct.
<chrislowis> Zakim: who is on the call
<chrislowis> Zakim: who is on the call?
<olivier> cwilson: for MIDI, we have a strong proposal, but would like to be conservative with our milestones and slide them by at least 1 Quarter
<olivier> … especially given that we first recharter before publishing a FPWD
<olivier> … sliding by 1Q would give us until the end of the year to reach LC
<olivier> … still fairly aggressive, but much narrower and much more targeted that web audio API
olivier: fair enough
... I'll send another update then, sliding MIDI back a quarter and making the Web Audio schedule much more conservative.
<olivier> (first ED of the MIDI API)
MIDIBridge pointer: https://github.com/abudaan/MIDIBridge
<olivier> ISSUE-61 ?
<trackbot> ISSUE-61 -- AudioPannerNode models underdefined -- raised
olivier: it came up in a
discussion about issue-61: there are a number of references to
... there aren't necessarily clear references to that spec in the WA spec. crogers?
crogers: AudioPannerNode in
particular uses distance models, etc., that the intent was
would follow OpenAL's methods.
... OpenAL had a lot of work that went into it.
BTW: there is an HTML copy of OpenAL: http://connect.creativelabs.com/openal/Documentation/OpenAL%201.1%20Specification.htm
<olivier> OpenAL spec: http://connect.creativelabs.com/openal/Documentation/Forms/AllItems.aspx
crogers: I don't want to just plagiarize OpenAL, of course.
shepazu: is OpenAL royalty-free?
olivier: the spec is copyrighted, but there is no IP claims stated.
shepazu: if we are normatively referring to something, it has to be known-RF.
crogers: I don't think there are royalties involved. We asked Tom White a couple of months ago, and he came back with a soft "okay".
shepazu: it's not the copyright,
it's the RF status. The spec should include everything we need
to implement RF.
... I should get in touch with the OpenAL folks - I was talking with someone at Intel about this at the AC meeting.
crogers: I'm worried about just lifting text out of the document.
<scribe> ACTION: shepazu to reach out to OpenAL folks to get firm commitment on IP status of OpenAL. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-audio-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Reach out to OpenAL folks to get firm commitment on IP status of OpenAL. [on Doug Schepers - due 2012-05-30].
olivier: it would be good to have
a clear understanding of what the IP status of OpenAL is. After
that, we'll have to decide if we prefer quoting from it (in
which case we'll need a green light from OpenAL) or referencing
it - whichever makes the WA spec easier to implement.
... crogers, would we have similar issues for other external specs, like fmod?
crogers: no, the api itself is just an informative mention.
olivier: any preference as to referencing vs. quoting?
crogers: I have no problem either
way, just didn't want to lift text out without
... OpenAL is an industry standard, so I do believe we should continue to use it as a reference.
shepazu: so I can accomplish my action, what do we want to copy/reference?
crogers: and AudioListener.
olivier: we have had a number of
people join who can't, for one reason or another, attend our
current telecon, mostly due to tz issues.
... we discussed on the list how much decision-making should occur on the list. I'm still keen to have telecons to keep a heartbeat going. I wanted to ask if others were comfortable with the frequency.
roc: as someone who has to get up at an odd hour for this call, I'd rather have less frequent but longer meetings. If you get up at 3am for a 15min meeting, that's less than ideal.
shepazu: suggestion of frequency?
roc: I'd probably suggest letting issues pile up, and schedule a telecon when necessary. Additionally, it's best to give notice of agenda/cancellations/etc with at LEAST 24hrs notice.
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to suggest the group could have alternating times for APAC/EMEA deltas. My workgroup does this.
<olivier> cwilson: the group could have alternating times for APAC/EMEA deltas. My workgroup does this.
<olivier> olivier: how does the coordination happen? minutes?
<olivier> cwilson: yes, detailed minutes and clarifications/ questions on the list
cwilso: additional idea: just plan agenda further ahead, and let members opt out.
shepazu: my experience is that
when groups stop having telecons, the timelines tend to suffer
... it's easier to get out of sync or miss times.
... (when not on regular telecons)
roc: the current time isn't
ridiculous - it's that getting Asia, America and Europe on the
call isn't really possible.
... not sure alternating times would help, if we want to use telecon time to resolve disputes.
I would think you'd have to make sure that the protagonists were on the call, or the discussion slides to the next one. But this may, as you say, be no help whatsoever. :)
olivier: weekly is nice, because
you don't have to think about whether there is a telecon.
... I do try to get the agenda out at least 24hrs in advance. I still think weekly is the best approach.
shepazu: one aspect brought up on
the list: are resolutions on telecons binding?
... via email, I've rarely seen quick resolutions.
... I would suggest we DO come to resolutions on telecons, list has a week to reconsider/further argue - if still unsettled by end of week, schedule telecon with protagonists.
(shepazu said pretty much what I was going to say)
shepazu: we've had another telecon that's focused on administrivia rather than technical issues. We should limit this in the future.
olivier: we'll try to do so in the future.
roc: you might want to start this approach by having a special telecon with the Opera guys - they seem to feel strongly, but they're not here.
joe: I agree with Doug that having this conversational context. Looking forward to involving Opera and discussing their feedback.
olivier: this sounds like an appropriate time to wrap up for today. I'll try to find a slot for a meeting with the Opera guys for the next week.
<scribe> ACTION: Olivier to find a meeting time with Opera. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-audio-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Olivier
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ot, folivier3)
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/prending/pending/ Found Scribe: cwilso Inferring ScribeNick: cwilso Found ScribeNick: cwilso Default Present: gabriel, roc, +1.862.201.aaaa, cwilso, olivier, tross, +1.650.253.aabb, +1.978.314.aacc, joe, Doug_Schepers, crogers, Clowis Present: gabriel roc +1.862.201.aaaa cwilso olivier tross +1.650.253.aabb +1.978.314.aacc joe Doug_Schepers crogers Clowis Regrets: Philip Marcus Al Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012AprJun/0364.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 23 May 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-audio-minutes.html People with action items: olivier shepazu WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]