See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Chris L
<scribe> ScribeNick: chrislowis
<joe> I'm getting "this passcode is not valid"
<ehsan> oops, I disconnected instead of muting!
<joe> Is anyone else able to connect with 28346?
<olivier> joe, yes
<gmandyam> Also having trouble dialing in
<olivier> sorry to hear that gmandyam
<olivier> will ping w3c sysreq
<joe> I'm not able to connect from either of my phones
olivier: we have two things on the agenda
olivier: starting with a review of the action items
<olivier> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/track/actions/pendingreview
olivier: we have 3 actions
pending review.
... starting with http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/track/actions/57
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to agree that this is a better avenue for feedback.
olivier: I had a look and I'd like to cancel it. It's fine for it to say to contact the mailing list, and we can decide there whether it's an issue or not.
cwilso: I agree.
olivier: we'll close that one
then.
... http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/track/actions/60
looks to be a non-issue.
... so will close.
... And finally, http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/track/actions/65
<olivier> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22969
olivier: I've created the issue mentioned (to look into how much the Web Audio API is "inspired" by OpenAL)
<gmandyam> +q
olivier: we discussed that the OpenAL was licenced under something fairly liberal, but we may not need to worry about this. At some point we should go through this and satisfy ourselves.
gmandyam: is it our concern, the IPR issues around this?
olivier: Perhaps not, but I should talk to PSIG to make sure.
<gmandyam> My question is whether it is really the responsibility of this WG to determine whether OpenAL is compatible with W3C RF policy? Could the PSIG handle this?
<olivier> ACTION: olivier to contact PSIG to ask for the best course of action re bug 22969 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/15-audio-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Contact psig to ask for the best course of action re bug 22969 [on Olivier Thereaux - due 2013-08-22].
gmandyam: thank you for the clarification.
olivier: Action 66 is still pending on chrislowis, and is ongoing.
olivier: I'm apologising for the
mystery surrounding this agendum.
... the news that I need to announce is that our spec editor
Chris Rogers has stepped down from his role at Google and won't
be able to participate in the group in the foreseeable
future.
... we received a message from Chris saying how proud he was
for working with the group and mentioned people on this call by
name and wished us all the best.
... needless to say, we must now realise that in W3C parlance,
Chris R was the editor of the API, but as we know he was also
the 'author' of the spec, not just the editor.
... usually at the W3C the 'author' of the spec is the group
itself, and one or a number of editors edit the spec.
... so I think we will need to move in the future to a
different model of working, which is more in keeping with other
working groups.
... cwilso, could you explain a little about what this means in
terms of Google's involvement with the WG.
cwilso: Yes, we've been working
hard internally to make sure that this isn't an issue in terms
of our involvement with the WG.
... I'll be stepping up my involvement with the WG in the
future (but not in the immediate month).
joe: Chris R has played a huge role in this group, and he'll be missed.
olivier: From speaking to him, he
may be involved in the future but that is not certain.
... however we have a spec that is in good shape for working
on.
shepazu: I'd like to acknowledge
the work Chris has done, we'd not be in the position we're in
with audio on the web without him, and the community is very
happy with what is now available.
... we have some people in this group who are audio experts,
some who are browser experts, and some implementors who do not
have as much audio experience. We need to find a new editor who
can fill both roles, and that may mean looking for more than
one editor.
... that person could be from inside or outside of the current
group
olivier: I'm aware we don't have everyone on the call, so some of this may surface on the list in the next few days.
cwilso: I did want to say, that I
have been talking to my management - I have the permission to
offer myself as editor.
... I think that would look different to Chris R's
involvment.
... I'd need to be more of an editor, with input from people on
the digital audio aspects.
<cwilso> I'd note that Apple has actually stepped up a bit in the last 6 months or so.
shepazu: Chris R has spoken in the past about working with people at Apple
jernoble: Eric Carlson and I worked with Chris R on the early versions of the spec, I don't know if we'll have the time to contribute to the spec as an editor, but I'll need to talk to people in my company.
olivier: one thing that we
haven't put in place so far is an effective "patch"
process.
... we tended to raise issues, and Chris would propose a
solution based on his expertise, and we'd agree on it.
... perhaps a possibility is to have the whole group taking
ownership of the spec, rather than sources of input - if we
could get more patches and suggestions of prose that would help
any future editor.
joe: some way of using bugzilla/a bug-tracking system to review and then close issues in a clear manner would help.
olivier: you're right, we have status codes already, but we haven't really enforced these.
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to mention that I think moving Web MIDI to github was a positive move in collaboration
cwilso: I think a patch-based system, specifically on github, would help. It certainly did with Web MIDI.
ehsan: I used to edit the spec
directly and push my changes to the document, with Chris's
go-ahead.
... we shouldn't put too much effort into reviewing changes, as
they can be edited after the fact (as the spec is a working
document).
(based on what I could hear on the call)
<cwilso> +1 that we do need to get github patches/issues to send emails to the group.
olivier: My concern is that the
integration with github and the mailing list isn't great.
... I think it's possible, but I haven't been able to get it to
work.
cwilso: we do need to make sure
that patches, changes, issues send emails to the group - that's
important.
... what I tried to do with WebMIDI is to gather up a larger
set of changes, and send to the group.
olivier: I realise this is a big
change to how we work.
... think about if and how, with the support of your
organisation, you can volunteer to edit or contribute to the
spec.
... I'll send a summary to the list of this meeting noting that
cwilso has volunteered his time.
ehsan: How will this affect the vote on the data-race issue?
olivier: we have two good proposals to address that issue. What I'd like to happen in the next 2 weeks is for the third proposal to be documented, so that we can create a calendar for what we'd like to happen.
ehsan: it's important to us with regards to FF25, but that's clear.
cwilso: it would be reasonable to have your current implementation to follow your proposal, as it won't have a big impact on currently available applications.
ehsan: -- noisy --
joe: I'm also interested in not
holding up the implementations, and if we can use something
like roc's proposal in the interim then that seems like a good
idea.
... I think we should push forward with a vote. If a third
proposal can't be specified then we should at least consider it
in its current state.
shepazu: just to make it clear, we (the W3C) doesn't vote, it reaches consensus. But the group can decide how to go forward.
olivier: yes, and if we reach a consensus, we don't *have* to vote, but we can use voting to break a dead-lock.
<olivier> ACTION: olivier to send calendar of how/when we want to go forward on the audiobuffer data races issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/15-audio-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-68 - Send calendar of how/when we want to go forward on the audiobuffer data races issue [on Olivier Thereaux - due 2013-08-22].
*olivier acknowledges suggestion to take discussion to the list.
olivier: if there is no other
comment, suggest we adjurn.
... hearing no objection, the call is adjorned.
... I'll coordinate about whether we have a call in one week or
two depending on how things progress.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/week/group/ Succeeded: s/+1.978.314.aaaa/joe/ Found Scribe: Chris L Found ScribeNick: chrislowis Default Present: jernoble, olivier, chrislowis, [Mozilla], cwilso, gmandyam\, joe, Doug_Schepers Present: jernoble olivier chrislowis [Mozilla] cwilso gmandyam\ joe Doug_Schepers WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Jussi) Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ Marcus Regrets: Marcus Jussi Got date from IRC log name: 15 Aug 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/08/15-audio-minutes.html People with action items: olivier WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]