IRC log of tt on 2016-05-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

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