14:00:15 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:00:15 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/03/22-tt-irc 14:00:17 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:00:17 Zakim has joined #tt 14:00:19 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 14:00:19 Date: 22 March 2018 14:00:26 Log: https://www.w3.org/2018/03/22-tt-irc 14:00:54 tmichel has joined #tt 14:01:21 Present: Nigel 14:01:23 Chair: Nigel 14:01:24 scribe: nigel 14:02:02 Present+ Pierre, Thierry 14:02:13 pal has joined #tt 14:03:32 Present+ Andreas 14:04:04 Regrets: None 14:04:11 Topic: This meeting 14:04:37 Nigel: Today, we need to cover the Charter, TTML1 3rd Ed CR transition request, 14:04:55 .. not sure if there's anything on TTML2 or IMSC... 14:05:05 Pierre: I think we should plan on going to CR for IMSC 1.1 in two weeks. There's nothing 14:05:09 .. blocking us from doing that. 14:05:14 Present: Cyril 14:05:17 cyril has joined #tt 14:05:23 Pierre: That gives us 2 weeks to prepare the transition paperwork too. 14:05:34 Nigel: OK, let's cover that. 14:05:58 Nigel: Any other business or particular points to cover? 14:06:04 group: [none] 14:06:10 Topic: TTWG Charter 14:06:25 -> https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/Draft-2018-TTWG-Charter.html Draft 2018 TTWG Charter document 14:06:48 Nigel: Thanks to those who reviewed and raised issues on the repository recently. 14:07:01 -> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/issues Charter repository issues 14:07:25 atai2 has joined #tt 14:07:37 Nigel: Going through the issues... 14:07:41 .. #1 is done, closing. 14:07:58 .. #2 is end date. 14:08:11 Thierry: Currently it is end of March 2020. I want to highlight that all our deliverables are 14:08:26 .. mainly for end of 2018 so therefore I don't know how we will justify that to W3M. 14:08:38 Pierre: Over TPAC I was told many times that it was a shame that WGs are disbanded and 14:08:45 .. unable to maintain their specifications. 14:09:03 Thierry: That's true. There was something in the past that was life after Rec = 6 months in Charters. 14:09:08 .. I don't know what is the case today. 14:09:20 Pierre: I would put 2025, if it were up to me. Something reasonably far in the future. 14:09:27 Present+ Glenn 14:09:41 Andreas: I understand Thierry's issue here, I also had this concern, that others might wonder 14:09:53 .. why we need the extra time. Maintenance of specs is one thing. We already have parts 14:10:09 .. of what we want to do that go beyond this year. Gathering the requirements for life after 14:10:24 .. IMSC 1.1 and TTML2 will start. We don't have deliverables yet for IMSC2 or TTML3 but if 14:10:37 .. it will happen it will fall into the Charter period. I'm not sure how concrete it needs to be. 14:10:51 Thierry: My idea was exactly that - to add that we will work on requirements for next 14:11:01 .. versions of TTML or IMSC, to enable us to have a future version. 14:11:10 Nigel: Does anyone oppose adding that? 14:11:15 group: [silence] 14:11:31 Nigel: I hear consensus that we have that. 14:12:06 Nigel: I will add a comment to the issue. 14:12:18 .. But what should the end date be? 14:12:26 Thierry: W3M wants 2 years, you could ask for 3. 14:13:27 Nigel: I don't really want to have a battle over this point; 2020 gives us time to generate 14:13:44 .. any requirements for new specs. I'm happy with a 2 year period and then come back 14:13:50 .. with new concrete deliverables. Any other views? 14:13:54 group: [none] 14:14:25 Nigel: I've added a note to #2. 14:14:42 Nigel: #3 is done, I'll close. 14:15:43 .. #4 is about HTML5/CSS3 mapping. 14:15:54 .. It's currently worded in scope of TTML2. Can it be a separate deliverable? 14:16:00 Thierry: I can put it in "other deliverables" 14:16:17 Glenn: We should make the Charter flexible enough to allow us to subdivide the spec into 14:16:22 .. modules. 14:16:35 Nigel: +1 14:16:48 Glenn: I anticipate some features may be pulled out of TTML2 because of insufficient implementation, 14:16:59 .. so we may want individual modules for those features, which would be easier to complete. 14:17:29 Thierry: That's probably an update to the Deliverables section. I could add this into "Other deliverables". 14:20:23 Nigel: As a refactoring of TTML2 or a TTML3? 14:20:30 Glenn: It can't be a change to TTML2, it has to be a new version. 14:20:37 Nigel: TTML3 isn't a listed deliverable at the moment. 14:20:47 Glenn: Clearly we should at least imply the possible existence of TTML3. 14:20:55 Thierry: We covered that in the second issue before. 14:21:18 Nigel: I think this means if our requirements for TTML3, say, include refactoring then we 14:21:37 .. would have to add that as a new Rec track deliverable in some future Charter. 14:21:48 Glenn: I was not proposing, when I mentioned modules, refactoring TTML2 into a new TTML3 14:21:59 .. that is fully modularised. I was suggesting that new features could be defined in modules 14:22:10 .. while leaving the core of TTML2 unmodularised. 14:22:38 Andreas: I'm not sure if we need to decide already which applications we work on. The first 14:22:49 .. step is to gather the requirements and then find the right publication form to satisfy those 14:23:07 .. requirements. I'm not sure if we need to define that now in the Charter. 14:23:15 Glenn: Agreed. Don't tie your hands early. 14:23:18 Nigel: Also agreed. 14:23:22 Thierry: Right. 14:24:25 Thierry: Will it be normative? 14:24:38 Nigel: I don't think we know if this potential other deliverable will be normative or not at this stage. 14:24:51 Thierry: Okay, then I should not focus on normative/non-normative in 2.2. I will probably 14:24:57 .. withdraw the "non-normative" statement. 14:24:59 Glenn: Good idea. 14:25:01 Nigel: +1 14:25:50 Nigel: #5 Will -> Should. 14:26:09 Thierry: In the Scope intro, bullet 1 and bullet 3. 14:26:12 Glenn: I agree with that change. 14:26:29 Nigel: That's done, will close. 14:27:10 .. #6 is about IMSC scope. Non-controversial, done, so closing. 14:27:31 .. #7 is remove 1.4, but Andreas would like it back. 14:27:53 Pierre: I have no objections to putting it back if there is a volunteer. 14:28:15 Andreas: I think it is fine to have it as a document that could possibly be updated or maintained. 14:28:27 .. And Pierre wanted to remove it as an official deliverable? 14:29:02 Pierre: I understand what you're saying. We should keep it under 2.2 as it is. 14:29:05 Andreas: +1 14:30:19 Nigel: Okay, there's no change to make for #7 so closing. 14:30:37 .. #8 is remove 1.5, maintain SDP-US. 14:31:07 .. SDP-US is already in the list of documents that may be maintained, so there's nothing 14:31:11 .. to do here. Closing. 14:31:55 .. #9 is about removing the non-measurable objective. 14:32:06 Thierry: This was in the template, but has been removed from there, so I've removed it here too. 14:32:10 Nigel: Okay, closing this one. 14:32:36 .. #10 is clarify privacy and security implications 14:34:09 .. Pierre, how much more specific do you want us to be here? I think it's part of WG work to define what the requirement means for each specification, 14:34:13 .. and we should stay vague. 14:34:30 Pierre: But what needs to go in the relevant section? Is it within the scope of the current specs? 14:34:38 .. I don't feel we should sign up for something unknown. 14:34:48 Thierry: I don't think W3M is requiring more than what we've been doing so far. 14:34:59 Pierre: That's not what the spec says, what about non-web authors? 14:35:14 Andreas: Do we really expect complication here? I understand it as a bit of a vague requirement 14:35:29 .. to consider security and privacy. In the context where we expect TTML to be used we 14:35:38 .. try our best to make sure that TTML itself is not a security risk. 14:35:57 .. So exactly what we need to address depends on the context of use and the time when we 14:35:59 .. publish. 14:36:10 Glenn: Since we're free to put whatever we want in that section we could simply say that 14:36:23 .. the concerns don't apply in the sphere of use. All the Charter needs to say is we need 14:36:28 .. to think about security and privacy. 14:36:54 Pierre: "Each specification should contain a section discussing security and privacy" 14:36:57 Glenn: Sounds perfect to me. 14:37:28 Nigel: Why don't we take the word "Web" out from before "authors". 14:37:41 Glenn: I like Pierre's text better - it is more generic and allows us to do what we need. 14:37:44 Thierry: We can try. 14:38:19 Nigel: I've added the new proposed text to the issue. 14:39:01 .. #11 Clarify testing plans is next. 14:39:49 Nigel: This is in the Success Criteria section. What is the implication of non-success? 14:40:14 Thierry: The section on test is intended by W3M to start writing tests as early as possible. 14:40:25 .. There is even a trend now adopted by some groups that each new functionality added to 14:40:38 .. the spec can only have a pull request merged if there is an associated test. We are more 14:40:52 .. and more leaning towards having tests and specs in parallel. The statement does not 14:40:57 .. say we must do that though. 14:41:46 Nigel: Right, and there's a link to that also in 2. Deliverables. My question is what is the 14:41:53 .. consequence of not meeting a success criterion? 14:42:00 Thierry: I don't think there is any at the moment. 14:42:15 Nigel: Also what is a "testing plan"? 14:42:23 Thierry: I don't know, I think developing a test suite. 14:42:43 Andreas: It's not so hard for me to understand it, it's just the strategy for how specs will 14:42:45 .. be tested. 14:42:54 Nigel: That's a different thing and it is worth making the distinction. 14:43:12 Thierry: W3 wants to reduce time for getting to Rec so their idea is to draft tests earlier. 14:43:18 .. Currently it is only a goal. 14:43:49 Andreas: For me it is good as it is, and a good goal, I think we should try to have this as 14:43:57 .. an extra requirement for new features to be added to the spec. 14:44:00 Nigel: +1 14:44:08 Glenn: That doesn't mean the tests won't change over time. 14:44:13 Andreas: No, of course not. 14:44:29 Nigel: Are we going to leave it in then? 14:45:34 Pierre: There's no "should" here so we cannot be successful unless there are testing plans. 14:45:46 Glenn: I agree for consistency we should use "should" rather than implying "shall". 14:45:54 Pierre: It's important to know what we're committing to. 14:46:08 Andreas: But a success criterion is not a requirement, it's a measure for how successful we are. 14:46:23 .. It doesn't mean we have to stop if we don't do it. How I understand it is we say how we 14:46:36 .. want to address testing with our specification, and write a plan and strategy from the start, 14:46:48 .. then I agree that we can have a requirement that there should whenever possible be a 14:46:57 .. test for any pull request that introduces or changes a feature. 14:47:09 Pierre: I don't want to do this unless we want to do it. So far we've not been doing this, 14:47:17 .. and it requires more resources up front. 14:48:04 Nigel: The success criteria one does not require a significant change though. 14:48:17 Andreas: I agree we use Should in the success criteria sometimes. 14:48:24 .. Thierry can we add it here? 14:48:30 Thierry: We can put a should. 14:49:31 Pierre: "A testing plan should be associated with each specification, starting from the earliest draft." 14:49:47 Nigel: That works, and by the way that could be a conversation in a meeting, with its minutes. 14:51:17 Nigel: I've added a comment to the issue. 14:51:28 .. #12 Clarify accessibility section 14:52:42 Thierry: This comes from the template, so we've put it in. 14:53:02 +q 14:53:37 Andreas: Can we address this by adding a last sentence: "This will be addressed by 1.e and 3.c from the scope section"? 14:53:50 .. It is general template and they want comparability, so we can keep it there and say we 14:54:04 .. are working on that, so point to the concrete specs. Would that work? 14:54:30 Nigel: I don't think so - addressing the MAURs is not the same as saying how we address them. 14:54:42 Pierre: Exactly. I think we should strike out that sentence in 1.2. 14:55:01 Glenn: In TTML going back to the first edition we had an appendix addressing satisfaction of 14:55:14 .. certain requirements set by the quality control group. I don't know if that's out of date. 14:55:25 Pierre: It's part of my concern that things we add need to be maintained. 14:55:41 Thierry: Why don't we try to strike that paragraph and explain to W3M that we are addressing 14:55:49 .. it by meeting the MAURs? 14:56:11 Pierre: We're addressing it by the efforts of this group, to support captions delivery worldwide. 14:56:20 .. It is core this group to address accessibility requirements. 14:56:28 +q 14:56:32 +q 14:56:56 Nigel: Challenging that, if that's our work, why would we not write down how we have done it. 14:57:19 Pierre: Someone has to do that work, and unless we can do it we should strike it. 14:57:22 ack atai2 14:57:25 ack atai 14:59:05 Andreas: I certainly would be happy to help out with this on each specification. 14:59:23 Nigel: I don't understand how to argue removal of this criterion to W3M given that it is about 14:59:33 .. a description of the intent of our work. 14:59:48 s/each/some of the 14:59:53 s/tion/tions 15:00:08 Pierre: Meeting the MAURs does this, we don't need to say any more. 15:00:11 Glenn: I agree. 15:00:31 Andreas: I understand why this is needed in specs. If people read W3C specs and know that 15:00:46 .. they all have a section on accessibility then it will help them, with consistency. From my 15:01:00 .. understanding this is not a big deal. We could ask W3M what input they really expect here. 15:01:21 .. Also if it would be sufficient to say that our specs meet MAURs etc. 15:01:34 Pierre: I think this is intended for specs whose primary goal is not accessibility. 15:02:35 Nigel: My proposal is to leave this in as a "should" success criterion. 15:02:39 Pierre: I object to that. 15:02:45 Glenn: [has to leave] 15:02:51 Andreas: It's not a big deal I think. 15:03:09 .. I see the sense in having it - it's not a blocker for the Charter if it is absent. I don't 15:03:21 .. object to removing it, but if W3M says to add it back in I don't think it's worth discussing again. 15:03:38 Pierre: I agree with you Andreas, and I would like W3M to explain the goal here. I'm happy 15:03:40 .. to be convinced. 15:04:36 Nigel: My proposal to leave it in is to avoid this argument. We can defer the decision to the 15:04:49 .. activity of the WG later, and make the case. It doesn't mean that we have any particular 15:04:55 .. failure or issue to deal with. 15:05:13 .. I would also like to understand the motivation, and note that it is somewhat vague. 15:05:29 Andreas: Can we take it out for now and explain why? 15:05:47 Thierry: We can try. 15:06:05 .. This template is quite new so I have no experience with it - it came only 3 months ago. 15:06:57 Nigel: I've added a note to the issue. 15:07:14 .. #13 is clarify testing requirements. 15:07:59 Pierre: I suggested adding a section on development of deliverables. 15:08:02 Nigel: Good idae. 15:08:04 a/ae/ea 15:08:11 s|a/ae/ea| 15:08:16 s/ae/ea 15:09:03 Nigel: I think it needs to be scoped only to substantive changes too. 15:09:06 Thierry: That's true. 15:09:42 Nigel: I also think it's about the WG being clear about the intent of the change, not just about interop. 15:09:51 Pierre: Exactly, it's good software practice. 15:11:11 Nigel: Propose rewording to: "All substantive changes to specifications should have associated tests." 15:11:14 Thierry: that works 15:11:20 Nigel: I'll add that to the issue. 15:12:20 .. #14 is TTML2 expected completion 15:12:56 Thierry: I made the change to TTML2 "Q4 2018" and also in the required timeline, now it says 15:13:02 .. October 2018 in §2.3. 15:13:12 Nigel: Okay, will close that. 15:13:33 .. Next is #15, IMSC 1.1 completion. 15:13:36 Thierry: That's the same. 15:13:42 Nigel: I'll close that too. 15:14:03 .. #16 Missing TTML13ED deliverable. 15:14:26 Thierry: That one, Pierre wanted to add TTML13ED to the Deliverables, so I think it is 15:14:38 .. doable. It could be that it will be published at least as a CR before the end of the Charter. 15:14:50 .. I hope it will. If that's the case then maintenance will not be on 2ED but on 3ED. 15:15:07 Nigel: Do we need anything other than maintenance? 15:15:38 Thierry: That's why I put it in generically under the end of §2.1. 15:15:50 .. If we start on this we have to highlight each version of the Recs. 15:16:04 Pierre: I understand, I am not sure why IMSC 1.0.1 is listed explicitly under normative specs 15:16:08 .. but TTML1 3ED is not. 15:17:15 Nigel: There's an argument that IMSC 1.0.1 introduces features whereas a maintenance 15:17:19 .. update generally does not. 15:17:26 Thierry: Then what's in the Charter is fine. 15:17:37 Pierre: Where is it listed that work is happening to TTML1 3ED? 15:17:47 Thierry: It's an update of 2ED. 15:18:16 Nigel: This is listed at the end of §2.1. 15:18:33 Pierre: OK, that's fine, proceed. I don't understand it but it shouldn't stop us. 15:19:04 .. I'll close the issue. 15:19:06 Nigel: Thank you. 15:19:24 .. Next is #17, the requirement for 5 active participants. 15:19:38 Thierry: That was in the template. I had an email exchange and copied his response. 15:19:49 .. I asked him if it is mandatory to have this statement in. He said you cannot remove it 15:19:55 .. but you need to adjust it to reality. 15:21:25 +1 15:21:35 q+ 15:21:44 Nigel: Counting current active participation, we don't have any issue with getting 6 today. 15:21:56 .. It could give us some margin of safety if we reduce to 5, say. 15:22:01 ack atai2 15:22:04 s/+1 15:22:21 Andreas: At the moment I don't see a big issue here. I checked other recent Charters, and 15:22:32 .. they all have a minimum of 6, one has a minimum of 10. Also David Singer is the Chair, 15:22:46 .. he must be an active participant, and with others, at the moment I don't see an issue here. 15:23:27 Thierry: I think this is just for starting the group, it doesn't say if we go less than 6 the Charter will stop. 15:23:32 Pierre: That's exactly what it says. 15:23:56 Nigel: It's an expectation not a requirement. 15:24:16 Pierre: It looks like a success criterion. 15:24:27 Nigel: Shall we do nothing here? 15:24:35 Pierre: So all other new charters do this? 15:24:54 Andreas: I looked at two or three, and they have it. One of them has 10 as an expectation. 15:24:57 Pierre: alright. 15:26:26 Nigel: I've added a comment. 15:26:33 Pierre: I'll close the issue. Thank you. 15:26:52 Nigel: Next is #18, add text for liaisons with other SDOs. 15:27:33 Andreas: Our group is a central point for timed text, and we spend a lot of time liaising, 15:27:53 .. bringing in other SDOs' requirements. Remember fillLineGap for example. It's not enough 15:28:03 .. listing that we speak from time to time, it's an important part of our work. Also it is 15:28:25 .. important that other SDOs depend on our specs so it's super important to put their 15:28:39 .. requirements in new specs and to maintain the specs they reference. 15:29:29 Nigel: My counter argument is that this is already stated in section 3. 15:30:12 Andreas: I'm not satisfied with this. It may be that every group formally has this requirement 15:30:24 .. but it needs to be recognised that this group spends significant time doing it. 15:30:44 Thierry: My understanding is that what we have in the external organisations section is more 15:30:57 .. about the review expected from the W3C point of view and what you are saying is that 15:31:14 .. we liaise not only on those occasions but also to add functionality to our specifications, 15:31:21 .. which I understand is a bit different. 15:31:26 Andreas: Yes, definitely. 15:32:22 Nigel: So you would add something to Scope like "6. Liaise as necessary with other organisations including but not limited to those listed in §3.2" 15:32:30 Andreas: Yes, but also to bring in their requirements. 15:33:28 Nigel: We don't want to commit to meeting their requirements in all cases. 15:33:30 Thierry: No! 15:33:44 Andreas: Right, so that wording is fine, after removing "as necessary". 15:34:29 Nigel: I've added that to the issue. 15:34:47 .. Next is #19 Add requirements analysis for immersive media 15:35:10 Andreas: I linked to the minutes of the f2f at TPAC and in Cupertino for this. Both times 15:35:24 .. we agreed to add it to the Charter. First it was brought in by David Singer and I supported 15:35:30 .. it and then again in Cupertino. 15:35:35 .. Nobody objected to it. 15:37:01 Nigel: My only concern was a technical one, that W3 seems to want a starting document 15:37:16 .. before adding as a Charter deliverable. So I wanted the steer there. 15:37:24 Thierry: We can work on requirements documents. 15:37:28 Nigel: ok. 15:38:17 .. Should we add it as a non-normative deliverable to 2.2? 15:38:25 Andreas: If possible we should add it to the scope. 15:38:44 Thierry: 2.2 already says "use cases and requirements documents" which is good enough. 15:39:23 Nigel: I'll add to the issue: "7. Investigate caption format requirements for 360 Degree, AR and VR video content." 15:39:38 .. Next is #20 15:39:47 .. Interaction with WICG 15:40:24 Andreas: We should add WICG to 3.1 W3C Groups. 15:40:37 .. I got from Wendy that it's an important new strategy from W3C, and I think it makes sense, 15:40:47 .. and we should signal in the Charter that we will try to work with them. 15:41:05 Thierry: The only issue I have with this is that during Wide Review we will have to ping them. 15:41:17 .. We could add it but add a conditional statement. 15:41:27 Andreas: Definitely, just to signal we try to do it. 15:41:44 Thierry: I wouldn't want another group to review our specs. 15:41:53 Nigel: I don't think WICG would consider it in their scope to do it either. 15:44:05 .. Do we want a subsection of 3.1 to say something like "The Working Group will work with the following W3C groups with no requirement for them to provide review of the Working Group's deliverables" 15:44:21 .. and add WICG in that list. 15:45:00 Nigel: I'm concerned that this is unnecessary and might be seen as excluding other CGs, 15:45:03 .. which seems wrong. 15:45:38 Andreas: I think we want to promote incubation. It's not just another CG. 15:45:45 Nigel: I think any CG can incubate a new spec. 15:46:00 Cyril: It would be dangerous to limit ourselves to WICG because it's very browser based. 15:46:15 .. For TTML it's good if we get that feedback but shouldn't preclude us from defining a feature 15:46:18 .. if it is needed. 15:46:46 Pierre: I don't think there's any reason not to send an FYI to WICG, the question is if that 15:47:00 .. is part of the formal liaison groups. That's a pretty important distinction. An FYI to WICG 15:47:13 .. is not a bad idea, but putting them in the critical path is different. 15:47:52 Nigel: I think what we need here is a statement that says we will work with other CGs including WICG to coordinate the addition of new features. 15:48:15 Andreas: My idea was to give a signal first to W3C to say we think it is a good idea and will try it, 15:48:28 .. and secondly to browser manufacturers to tell them that they need to input into some parts 15:48:43 .. of our specs, and using WICG would be good to get it going. If other members have 15:48:51 .. strong concerns to put it in I'm fine to leave it out. 15:51:08 Nigel: I've added text to the issue to reflect this. 15:51:57 Nigel: Next is #21 Implement WebVTT resolution 15:52:28 Thierry: I was very uncomfortable removing WebVTT, but if you consider this Resolution 15:52:32 .. then it should not be there. 15:52:45 Andreas: I remember this but I think it is very clear that some members would like to have 15:52:49 .. more time to bring WebVTT to CR. 15:53:15 Nigel: Okay, I'm raising this so that it is tracked. Right now including WebVTT in a new 15:53:31 .. Charter would be contrary to the Resolution, which David Singer and Philippe agreed to. 15:53:49 Andreas: I think we need input from the other Chair. 15:54:04 Pierre: It's really hard to have this discussion without the proponents of WebVTT on the line. 15:54:06 Nigel: I agree. 15:55:15 .. Let's move on with no change for now. 15:55:28 .. Next is #22 Require maintenance of registries 15:55:55 Thierry: I will add registries in under Other non-normative documents. 15:56:56 Nigel: I've added a note to the issue. 15:57:05 Thierry: What should I do with "out of scope" which is empty? 15:57:09 Pierre: Remove the section. 15:57:11 Thierry: Ok 15:57:49 .. The next is section 8 licence. 15:58:04 Nigel: Can we use the wording from the current charter "For each deliverable the Working Group may choose either the W3C Document license or the W3C Software and Document license."? 15:58:10 Thierry: That's better, okay. 15:58:17 .. I will integrate that. 15:58:55 Nigel: That's everything for you to do please Thierry, as well as removing the editorial sections from the template. 15:59:09 Thierry: I'll do the edits tomorrow and send a last call to the WG with a Tuesday afternoon 15:59:25 .. deadline for minor edits before sending to W3M on Wednesday morning (Europe time). 15:59:28 Nigel: Thank you. 15:59:41 Topic: TTML1 3rd Ed CR 16:00:11 Thierry: I sent the transition request yesterday (or this morning?) 16:00:28 .. The Director is in China and MIT was closed yesterday, so it will be discussed early next week. 16:01:02 .. I will prepare the announcements etc - there's more to do than the normal WD. Considering 16:01:15 .. all the people who are involved it takes at least a week. I plan to have it before the end 16:01:27 .. of this Charter, which by the way will need to be extended if we provide a Charter by 16:01:40 .. next Wednesday, probably a 2 month extension for the AC review, or something like that. 16:01:49 Topic: IMSC 1.1 16:02:16 Pierre: Can we resolve to publish as a CR in two weeks? I think there's no obstacle to closing 16:02:24 .. all the issues in the next two weeks. 16:03:00 PROPOSAL: After resolving the current open issues, request transition of IMSC 1.1 to CR on 5th April. 16:03:12 RESOLUTION: After resolving the current open issues, request transition of IMSC 1.1 to CR on 5th April. 16:04:33 Pierre: In the next two weeks I'll work on merging the open pull requests and can help 16:05:10 .. with the transition request. 16:05:16 Thierry: Okay, thanks, I will begin working on that. 16:06:34 s/I think we need input from the other Chair./I think we should leave WebVTT in the draft Charter for now and we need input from the other Chair. 16:06:58 Topic: Meeting close 16:07:05 Nigel: Thanks everyone, we got through a lot today. 16:07:18 Thierry: Thanks Pierre, Andreas and Nigel for reviewing the Charter draft. 16:07:40 Nigel: We're slightly over time, so closing today now. [adjourns meeting] 16:10:08 rrsagent, make minutes 16:10:08 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/22-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:14:33 Present: Nigel, Pierre, Thierry, Andreas, Cyril, Glenn 16:22:16 rrsagent, make minutes 16:22:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/22-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:25:31 s/It is general template/It is a general template 16:26:09 s/a descriptions of the intent/a description of the intent 16:29:15 s|s/+1|Andreas: (That +1 was a typo - I meant to add myself to the queue) 16:30:55 s/I'll add to the issue: "7. Investigate/I'll add to the issue, in Scope: "7. Investigate 16:31:43 s/I wouldn't want another group to review our specs./I wouldn't want another (additional) group to review our specs. 16:33:49 rrsagent, make minutes 16:33:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/22-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:35:09 tmichel has joined #tt 16:35:40 ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:35:41 rrsagent, make minutes 16:35:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/03/22-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:46:20 atai2 has left #tt 18:34:49 Zakim has left #tt