See also: IRC log
<kaz> scribe: Chris
<kaz> scribenick: cpn
Bin: recapping the agenda, any other suggestions?
nothing
<Bin_Hu> http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html
Bin: Has everybody had a chance
to review the charter?
... Are there any other comments or suggestions?
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
cpn: multiple deliverables?
... TV Control API is the main one
... but possibly to have multiple delivelables as Francois
suggested
<inserted> scribenick: cpn
Francois: I have just updated the
draft charter
... to mention one or more deliverables
<kaz> delivelables section
Chris: I think this is OK as it leaves the scope and decision open for discussion
kaz: I also agree. Some WGs produce one report, some produce multiple notes, but the structure can be determined later
Bin: If there are no more
comments, I'd say we've achieved consensus on the draft
charter
... The next step is for Francois to follow up with the AC
Francois: Actually, the next
thing is to go to W3C management, before going to AC
review
... It's minuted that we have consensus
... If anyone disagrees
with the consensus, now would be a good time to say so
(no objections)
RESOLUTION: We have consensus on the wording of the draft WG charter so that we will create a WG
Bin: Once the WG charter is
approved, the WG will be officially started
... And I'd encourage all CG members to join the WG
... We'll have the first joint meeting of the CG and WG, but
there'll be a 3 month transition period
... During the joint meetings we'll discuss the WG structure,
also the phase 2 work to improve the specification
... There'll be two tracks: the recommendation track and the
phase 2 track, and members can decide where to contribute their
efforts
... Looking at the current schedule, there's a meeting June
28th, and we'll propose to close the CG on June 30th and
continue work in the WG
... But we can keep the existing conference call schedule
... The times could be adjusted based on the progress of
work
Chris: At TPAC I think we discussed keeping the CG open to work on some of the phase 2 work, while the WG focuses on the specification
Bin: That's possible, but will be driven by the needs of the members, I'm open to that option
Kaz: I agree with both of you,
and having two groups might make things complicated
... however, the automotive groups are structured with a WG and
a BG. the WG works on specs, and the BG works on incubation
kind of new work.
Bin: I agree, if the focus of
each group is clear this can be help
... So, we'll keep the CG open
... Thanks Chris for the suggestion
RESOLUTION: We will keep the Community Group open while also creating the Working Group to proceed with the specification work
Bin: Regarding logistics, we should find another time slot for the CG phone call
Bin: We'll need two independent
implementations of the specification from the WG
... We have good representation now from implementers
... Will Mozilla, LG, and Sony be interested in working on
implementations?
<inserted> scribenick: tidoust
Bin: Chris, do you expect an implementation on your side?
Chris: That's a good question. It's unlikely you will see a complete implementation from us. We're not browser manufacturers.
<inserted> scribenick: cpn
Chris: But we may want to do some prototyping work. I'll have to discuss with my team here.
Bin: Ok, maybe we can discuss this offline
Hyojin: I'll will check with the TV division in my company and let you know a contact
Francois: This is an important
point that W3C management will review: that there are good
implementation plans
... This is one of the criteria for the creation of a WG
... I'll need this information to go to W3C management, so will
follow up privately if people don't want to say in public
yet
... At this stage we just need to put forward a plan
Igarashi: In terms of implementation, should this be in product or as a prototype?
Francois: A prototype is fine,
but all I need to know is that there's a plan to do it
... It doesn't have to be in product, just a plan to write
concrete code that implements the spec
... If the community group can't show that there are potential
implementers, the W3C management will see it as premature to
move to standardisation
Bin: As Francois has mentioned,
to move forward with standardisation, having 2 implementations
is a must
... So we have to have implementations to create the WG
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
Kaz: please note that the AC Review will also have a question on potential implementations. So it would be nicer to have active group participants who are interested in implementing the proposed spec.
<scribe> scribenick: cpn
Hyojin: What are the scope of the implementations?
Bin: The implementation will need to cover the conformance class in the specification, and also be public
<kaz> Model CR Exit Criteria (by the HTML WG)
<tidoust> [I note that these exit criteria are those followed by the HTML WG. I think the Process document is less strict on the definition of what constitutes an implementation. These are good criteria though]
<Bin_Hu> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html
Igarashi: About the public
availability, I think the TV Control API can't follow such a
requirement, as it can't be implemented in a generic platform
such as a PC or Android
... How can we demonstrate public availability?
Bin: I'll try to draft some
language
... If it's not possible for a TV platform to be made
public
... We can clarify the stability, and define a life-cycle for
the implementation, e.g., showing it publicly at some event or
trade show
Kaz: There are some basic descriptions in the process document, but the newly created WG can define criteria itself, so we can draft the text later when we go into the CR period
Bin: It will be useful to help Igarashi and others to know the implementation criteria at this stage, to know what they're committing to
Igarashi: I agree
Francois: I'm not really asking for commitment, only that it's something you want to push for
<kaz>[ kaz whispers that maybe we should say "expectation" at the moment. ]
Kaz: I think Hyojin was also
asking about the coverage of the implementation
... One implementation doesn't have to include all the
features
... The features could be implemented across two or three
implementations
Bin: I'll draft something based on what we've just discussed
Bin: I assume anyone doing
implementation will also cover testing
... But if anyone else wants to contributes, please get in
touch
Kaz: We should think about using and contributing to the general W3C web platform testing effort
Bin: We'll need a specific test
platform suitable for TVs
... We can also discuss testing offline
... I encourage everyone to look at the proposed phase 2 work
and discuss offline
... Thank you all
[ adjourned ]