13:59:32 RRSAgent has joined #tt 13:59:32 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/12-tt-irc 13:59:34 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:59:34 Zakim has joined #tt 13:59:36 Zakim, this will be TTML 13:59:36 ok, trackbot 13:59:37 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 13:59:37 Date: 12 May 2016 13:59:40 mike has joined #tt 14:00:42 i'm not *really* here - no audio or webex, just IRC. I *might* see IRC msgs directed to me 14:01:12 Present: Nigel, Andreas, Glenn, Pierre 14:01:15 Chair: Nigel 14:01:18 scribe: Nigel 14:03:38 Topic: This Meeting 14:03:39 tmichel has joined #tt 14:04:36 pal has joined #tt 14:04:39 Present+ Thierry 14:05:30 nigel: Today we have Charter, TPAC 2016, IMSC, TTML, Profiles Registry, TTML and WebVTT Mapping Document 14:05:34 nigel: Any other business? 14:05:52 Topic: Charter 14:06:13 tmichel: Charter Review ends tomorrow, Friday. Yesterday there were no participation for 14:06:30 ... answering the questionnaire. We need 5% of the AC members to respond by new rules. 14:06:54 s/Yesterday there were no participation for/ 14:07:04 s/answering the questionnaire. / 14:07:55 nigel: I didn't see any comms about this survey before your reminder. 14:08:09 tmichel: The comm team only sent it to AC reps. 14:10:10 group: Unaware of survey minimal response requirement until now. 14:11:57 nigel: Some members may be able to see results at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/tt2016/results 14:12:57 Topic: TPAC 2016 14:13:57 nigel: Registration is now open for TPAC: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/ 14:14:13 nigel: It's from 19th to 23rd September this year. 14:14:21 action-464? 14:14:21 action-464 -- Nigel Megitt to Ask ttwg who would really prefer to be able to attend web & tv ig as well as ttwg at tpac 2016 -- due 2016-05-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW 14:14:21 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/464 14:14:30 nigel: I did this, and got some responses back. 14:15:10 nigel: Of the responses, some want to stay in TTWG all day on the Monday, others to 14:15:24 ... move between both. Overall there's a majority in favour of a joint meeting. 14:18:05 nigel: So I propose to request a max 30 minutes joint meeting, also to go back to the 14:18:23 ... organisers to discuss the options. We seem quite inflexible for moving from the Monday and Tuesday. 14:19:41 pal: There may not be 100% crossover of interest in both groups so we could analyse the 14:19:50 ... actual agenda of topics before rushing to a conclusion. 14:20:27 nigel: I'm not volunteering to try to meet the fine grained preferences of each individual member! 14:20:31 pal: It's less than ideal. 14:21:00 pal: Perhaps we could arrange our agenda for the Monday to minimise overlap. 14:21:18 close action-464 14:21:18 Closed action-464. 14:21:36 Topic: IMSC 14:21:44 action-461? 14:21:44 action-461 -- Thierry Michel to Add an acknowledgment section to the imsc 1 errata section. -- due 2016-04-28 -- OPEN 14:21:44 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/461 14:22:25 glenn: I think the only action was to change my attribution to plain Skynav without the "inc" 14:23:03 pal: We did that last time, there are no pull requests for this. 14:23:29 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/blob/master/spec/ttml-imsc1-errata.html 14:23:53 tmichel: We're only on a draft on github. When the group has reached agreement for the 14:24:04 ... errata then I can move it to the place on /TR that is linked from the Rec. 14:24:42 https://rawgit.com/w3c/imsc/master/spec/ttml-imsc1-errata.html 14:25:37 nigel: That draft looks fine to me. 14:25:44 action-466? 14:25:44 action-466 -- Nigel Megitt to Review notes to see who if anyone should be added to imsc acknowledgements for special thanks. -- due 2016-05-05 -- OPEN 14:25:44 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/466 14:26:00 nigel: From my review I didn't identify any other contributors. 14:26:18 close action-466 14:26:18 Closed action-466. 14:26:40 PROPOSAL: Publish the IMSC Errata document at https://github.com/w3c/imsc/blob/master/spec/ttml-imsc1-errata.html 14:26:44 glenn: Seconded. 14:27:29 tmichel: I will change the date to today's date. 14:28:03 nigel: Should there be a ToC on this document? It looks strange with a blank panel to the left. 14:29:01 glenn: Is this done with respec? If it's plain HTML then it needs the correctly formatted nav section. 14:29:06 tmichel: It's just HTML 14:29:16 glenn: It needs to be updated to meet the new styling. 14:29:22 tmichel: We don't have to do that here though. 14:29:34 glenn: The default stylesheet puts up a blank ToC pane on the left. 14:30:32 nigel: I'm raising an issue for this now. 14:30:50 https://github.com/w3c/imsc/issues/181 14:31:45 RESOLUTION: Publish the IMSC Errata document at https://github.com/w3c/imsc/blob/master/spec/ttml-imsc1-errata.html on /TR when it has been fixed for styling 14:32:03 Topic: TTML 14:33:05 action-458? 14:33:05 action-458 -- Glenn Adams to Create issue re: line height calculation for inline -- due 2016-04-07 -- OPEN 14:33:05 http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/actions/458 14:33:10 glenn: I think that's been done... 14:33:58 ... actually leave open for now, there isn't an issue yet. 14:34:40 nigel: What steps remain to publish the TTML2 WD. We're just waiting on the comms team 14:34:44 ... for a date aren't we? 14:34:46 pal: Correct. 14:35:02 glenn: As soon as I have a date I'll create a package and send it over to Thierry for publishing. 14:37:26 tmichel: Might be worth a request from the Chair to the comm team asking for notes 14:39:07 nigel: Ok I will do that after this meeting. 14:39:10 tmichel: Please CC me and plh 14:39:14 nigel: Will do. 14:39:37 nigel: The next topic relating to TTML is use of Pull Requests. 14:41:24 nigel: Given the ability to auto-publish WDs based on the group decision in Sapporo 14:41:40 ... and having reviewed all merged PRs, does that change anything? 14:42:00 s/Given/First, thanks to Glenn for reviewing the pull request mechanism and offering to use it. Given 14:42:20 glenn: I think the onus is on me to provide at least a week notice prior to publishing, 14:42:31 ... rather than me just pushing a button without an opportunity to query the group. 14:43:10 ... Given the echidna process requires me to upload a tar to a server to do automated processing, 14:43:23 ... including validating with the new validator and new pubrules system, which I've 14:43:42 ... started doing and found a bug in pubrules, which I think has already been fixed, I need 14:43:57 ... a token from the team to assign it to the document. I'm not sure how often the token 14:44:09 ... needs to be updated. Probably it doesn't need to be updated. 14:44:37 ... My thought is to announce to the group that an update to the WD is needed, and 14:44:46 ... to request comments within a fixed period, e.g. a week for any objections. 14:45:20 nigel: That's fine - the end of the e.g. week period should be no earlier than the last 14:45:32 s/the last 14:47:25 nigel: The issue is that we should have consensus for the changes according to the 14:47:35 ... Decision Policy, which allows for 2 weeks. 14:48:14 nigel: We don't really need extra consensus for publishing a new WD beyond consensus 14:48:16 ... for the changes. 14:48:31 glenn: On that topic, in the last meeting I said I would look at the PR process, which I did 14:48:49 ... and decided that most of it was okay for me to adhere to, but that a lazy consensus 14:48:57 ... process would be a good compromise. 14:49:30 pal: I think IMSC and TTML should use the same process. 14:49:48 glenn: Are you proposing to change the IMSC process? 14:50:10 pal: We had a really simple process for IMSC and I don't see why we shouldn't use that 14:50:36 ... for TTML. It's more complicated to have two processes. The IMSC process is a 2 week 14:50:52 ... review for substantive PRs unless overridden by a consensus agreement in meetings. 14:51:13 pal: I'm personally not happy with the proposed TTML process, because its possible that 14:51:24 ... PRs will be merged and then it's hard to back out. 14:51:35 glenn: The PR process will be used - the only difference is the time for a review. 14:52:02 pal: If you close the PR then it gets hidden - you have to go out of your way to figure 14:52:15 ... out what needs reviewing. It's needlessly complicated. 14:53:40 nigel: There's a serious point here - it can be hard for folk to see closed PRs. That's 14:53:48 ... why I suggested using labels to mark PRs that need review. 14:54:02 glenn: With lazy consensus we only have to mark non-consensus, not consensus. 14:54:11 ... Also email can be used. 14:54:39 pal: There's a bigger issue. Say you create 10 PRs, and then merge them a day later. 14:54:58 ... Then someone objects to the first one merged. It's really hard to back out of that 14:55:12 ... specific PR. I see problems with transparency with that approach. 14:55:55 pal: I object to having two different processes. If we want to adopt the same one for IMSC 14:56:00 ... then we should talk about that. 14:56:53 glenn: I did include a section on post-merge issues - technical, editorial and principled objections. 14:57:09 ... The action I proposed was not to back anything out, which I wish to avoid. Instead I 14:57:20 ... suggested that new issues be filed addressing the perceived issue. So there won't be 14:57:32 ... any back-outs, but there may be follow-on issues that undo former changes. 14:57:53 pal: I have a real issue with the concept of lazy consensus. 14:58:00 glenn: That's what the group has been using since 2003. 14:58:04 pal: Not with IMSC1. 14:58:17 glenn: True, but probably because folks didn't consciously realise. 14:58:44 atai: I very much appreciated the transparent approach taken for IMSC 1. In general 14:58:58 ... I support any approach that encourages transparency and for people to review. 14:59:23 atai has left #tt 14:59:34 ... We are discussing a lot of formal processes in our meetings. 14:59:50 atai: [leaves] 14:59:57 nigel: Apologies we did not have enough time to discuss the mapping document. 15:01:16 nigel: We don't have consensus now, with concerns about transparency and lazy consensus. 15:01:30 glenn: If this compromise proposal is not acceptable then I will revert to the status quo. 15:01:39 nigel: The status quo is actually what we agreed in Sapporo. 15:02:25 glenn: That was not what I understood. 15:03:48 pal: I think lazy consensus will cause more trouble than the process we agreed in Sapporo. 15:03:58 ... Also discussing the process is not an efficient use of time. 15:04:06 nigel: Not having an agreed process would be worse. 15:04:45 nigel: My proposal is to go along with Glenn's proposal and deal with real world issues 15:04:48 ... if they arise. 15:05:02 pal: Having two processes is a blocker for me. Especially because there are dependencies 15:05:05 ... between the two documents. 15:05:18 glenn: We need time to pass using the proposed process, so I suggest we temporarily 15:05:31 ... allow the new process to go forward to gather more information and then revisit it. 15:05:45 ... Otherwise we will block progress as Andreas and Pierre have pointed out. 15:11:42 nigel: This is a tricky situation - we have mutually exclusive blocking issues from each 15:12:11 ... Editor (of TTML and IMSC) and an apparent group decision in Sapporo. 15:12:36 nigel: We're out of time now, and this needs more thought, so I'll adjourn for today. 15:12:43 ... Thanks all. [Adjourns meeting] 15:12:49 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:12:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/12-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:13:50 s/i'm not *really* here - no audio or webex, just IRC. I *might* see IRC msgs directed to me/ 15:14:11 s|s/the last|| 15:14:27 tmichel has joined #tt 15:14:54 s/be no earlier than the last/be no earlier than the end of the review period for any changes. 15:16:49 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:16:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/12-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:19:45 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:19:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:19:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/12-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:57:34 zcorpan has joined #tt 16:20:59 Zakim has left #tt