See also: IRC log
<scribe> scribe: nigel
Nigel: Today we have [iterates through agenda]
Gary: We have something to cover with WebVTT
Nigel: Ok
... I think we can cover all the issues today within the
time.
Andreas: Can we cover the f2f
meeting at the beginning to make sure we have time?
... It's one of the most urgent parts.
Nigel: OK I don't mind, if there
are no objections.
... AOB or specific points to make sure we get to?
group: [no other business]
Nigel: I made a WBS survey, which
was open for 2 weeks, and when it closed I looked at the
results and notified the
... group of the conclusions.
... Since then a couple of people have commented that they want
to reopen the discussion and at least one did not
... participate in the survey.
Andreas: To start, I thought the
survey was more an indicator of the preference of the members,
not a decision tool.
... We need to decide what we want to achieve with this meeting
and who is available and should attend.
... Also note who participated in the survey.
... 3 Editors have not voted, Gary, Pierre and Cyril.
... So this alone is important to know and means we need to
discuss it to make sure the Editors are at the meeting.
... We should have a consensus in the group from the active
members who want to participate.
Nigel: Thanks for that. I took it
that anyone wanting to participate in the meeting would respond
to the survey.
... I made the decision based on the survey results because
they were clear.
... Is there additional information?
Glenn: I agree with Andreas, I
was surprised that you took the survey as the result to make
the decision, I think that
... was not correct. The group should make a decision.
... Clearly a lot of people have indicated for Amsterdam around
IBC.
Nigel: That's not accurate, see the results.
Pierre: There was an important missing option, which was in Amsterdam concurrent with TPAC.
Philippe: We don't require WGs to
attend TPAC or not to conflict with TPAC either.
... It will be seen as poor form to meet concurrently to TPAC
on the other side of the planet.
... We had cases in the past like the WebRTC WG in Shenzhen
where some people wanted to meet in California, and
... others in TPAC. We organised a video link so people could
remotely attend the TPAC meeting.
... I had an email exchange with Pierre off band. For my
personal presence it is harder for me to commit to a full
... f2f meeting at TPAC due to my function compared to a f2f
meeting outside of TPAC.
... I still would like to have someone from W3S from the
meeting.
... If it is concurrent with TPAC but not at TPAC we will not
have any W3S present.
Pierre: The other missing option for the record was right after TPAC, in Europe.
Nigel: I didn't include those two options because I thought we had already clearly ruled them out during discussions.
Pierre: If that's the case my apologies, I don't recall that discussion.
Andreas: I agree with Philippe
that TPAC is extremely important and we would like to meet
there if possible.
... It's an unfortunate coincidence with other meetings.
... Something to bear in mind is we are in discussion with the
EBU group about taking on some functionality.
... In Geneva we planned a joint meeting, which can only happen
in Europe, not in Japan.
... Nearly all the EBU group participants are at IBC so this
would be an important point to make it in Europe.
... W3S should be there of course. Is Thierry planning to go to
Fukuoka?
Philippe: Yes, both of us.
Andreas: If we want to do it in
Europe it would be good to do it at the same time as TPAC
because we could schedule
... calls or for people e.g. Philippe to join remotely from
TPAC.
Philippe: Yes, I give my
priorities to disfunctional WGs and that doesn't include you
guys!
... We can have a video link if needed.
... As Pierre noted, Eric Carlson did answer the survey, and we
have other media related issues at TPAC for sure so I'm
... guessing he will attend TPAC.
Pierre: As far as I can tell he is the one individual who would attend at TPAC but not elsewhere.
<cyril> we should probably ask if Apple has representative at IBC at that time that could participate
Nigel: As a matter of priority I think we need to consider the input of WG members over non-members.
Philippe: s/WG member/active WG member
Nigel: I don't share that view Philippe. The survey is a mixed picture.
Pierre: Meeting during Fukuoka in Europe is another option, or just after.
Andreas: I would propose meeting
in Amsterdam on 18th and 19th September and putting that to the
group.
... Of course I don't want to downplay anyone's role and
votes.
... We need to look at the picture more closely and make a good
decision which at the moment is at Amsterdam.
Glenn: Our last two meetings have been in Europe, at EBU in January and TPAC in France.
Nigel: I would not be able to attend in Amsterdam during TPAC.
Glenn: It's better to go with
Fukuoka and go with the video link for European
attendees.
... My preference would be Fukuoka.
... I don't attend IBC anymore so that's not an issue for
me.
Pierre: We also ought to consider
not having a meeting around that time at all, but meeting at
some other time
... when there are agenda items.
... For instance, it would be easier for me to justify say
flying to London or driving to San Jose for a TTWG meeting
than
... flying to Fukuoka for 2 days.
Glenn: I think there's enough
impetus on moving forward to WebVTT and Gary's and Eric's work
that it would be worth
... having a meeting in Fukuoka. We can make progress on a
module for 360 if Vladimir is there also. I still think it
is
... worth considering a meeting there.
Pierre: Andreas is a proponent of 360 and it sounds like he will not be in Fukuoka.
Glenn: Video link?
Pierre: What time though? If
we're trying to schedule an inconvenient meeting then it's not
practical, so maybe
... schedule a different meeting.
Philippe: We could schedule a half day afternoon meeting in Fukuoka, in the morning in Europe.
Andreas: Bringing up the EBU
thing I think we will have items for 2 days.
... If I understood our decisions in Geneva we plan to have
something ready by the end of the year.
Nigel: The timing of TPAC is quite good for making late decisions in our process.
<cyril> what about limiting the scope of the meeting at TPAC to WebVTT and reschedule the TTML-part to another time/another location?
Philippe: We could have a long video conference late in August.
Nigel: See Cyril's input remotely - that is possible.
Philippe: Yes assuming WebVTT stays in the Charter.
Pierre: To the proposal from
Philippe, if there's a topic that would benefit from being at
TPAC because of links with
... other groups, that would be a 4 hour meeting probably,
which could be done remotely.
<cyril> if there is no WebVTT discussion, there is no need to have a meeting at TPAC
Glenn: We could do two afternoons on TTML in Fukuoka.
Pierre: We're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole
Nigel: +1
Glenn: A video link to Europe in the afternoon in Japan might work.
Pierre: Why not let the work
items drive the meeting. Put coordination topics on the agenda
for Fukuoka and otherwise
... schedule a meeting as needed? Just throwing ideas.
Andreas: I see no strong reasons
to have the meeting in Fukuoka because a lot of people will not
travel there, whereas
... in Amsterdam a lot of people would join. If both options
are not good I would go with the idea of trying another
... face to face slot and meeting then. It's really important
to have people in the same room together to make progress.
Nigel: I need to close this
discussion because of time, and synthesise some options based
on the discussion. This
... is complex!
... We don't have a clear front runner right now.
Nigel: There has been some non-WG reflector emails discussing a liaison text.
Andreas: As proposed I shared a
draft with Nigel, Mike, Pierre and Philippe to agree on a draft
for a liaison, and
... Mike volunteered to help with the submission to MPEG, and
made some improvements and proposals.
... He also said there seems to be a deadline for comments
which is next week so we need to do something soon.
... It would be good to submit this liaison letter as soon as
possible, I'm not sure what your opinion is Nigel, if you
want
... to redraft it and send it to the reflector?
Nigel: Yes please send the draft to the member-tt reflector.
Andreas: It needs to be submitted early next week.
<plh> +1 to Nigel
Nigel: Please do that - I don't
think the message is controversial so I would ask for a quick
turnaround review and if
... there are no objections I will ask Mike to submit it on
Monday or very early Tuesday.
Philippe: I will take the action
to check the liaison, I have an action item with Jeff Jaffe to
figure this out.
... We need to be able to provide the documents. I will figure
this out.
Andreas: It is important if we want to send comments to MPEG the group needs access to the documents.
Philippe: Yes, but I need time to
figure out how to provide that access.
... You need those documents by yesterday, I'm guessing?
Andreas: Yes, more or less!
... The background is some colleagues in VR-IF reviewed the
MPEG draft, found inconsistency in how they use IMSC
... so I'm not sure if it would help if we as a group make a
comment.
... The earlier the better. I asked the VR-IF people to send
their comments to Nigel so he could forward them to the
reflector.
Nigel: I don't think I've received anything.
Andreas: Hopefully tomorrow.
Philippe: Who wants to see those documents from ISO and cannot see them today?
Nigel: I'm not sure - my suggestion would be to send to member-tt so anyone can see them.
Philippe: I'm trying to figure
out how to prioritise this work and do it before the weekend
especially if I have to check
... with legal that publishing on member-tt will not create an
ISO mismatch. If that is the case I will send the
documents
... to your inbox Nigel.
Andreas: If that is possible it would be perfect.
Nigel: Okay we have actions - Andreas to send the draft liaison message to member-tt and Philippe to work out how to share the MPEG documents.
Nigel: There isn't much time on this today - I added a pull request to the agenda but we maybe should push it to next week.
Glenn: I removed a misleading sentence from the IANA registration text on codecs.
Nigel: My query is if that is really necessary.
Glenn: I don't think we need a
full IETF expert evaluation to remove a "for information"
statement.
... We have controlling editorial authority on the registration
now so even though Mike suggests we need expert review
... I think it is up to us to decide when to invoke it. My
preference would be to remove it but if people want to
leave
... in something that is misleading I could live with it but
it's not preferable.
Nigel: Let's leave that on the table for now and discuss offline.
Gary: I sent out an update last
week. I started working on STYLE block implementation for
vtt.js so with Safari's implementation
... and that then the feature will no longer be at risk.
... I made a pull request against the repo marking a couple of
things at risk so we can move forward with getting those
... things out as a new CR. Then hopefully we can remove those
features, move that to a PR and create a new CR with
... those features put back in.
Nigel: Can we do that or do we have to go back to WD?
Philippe: You can do it if you can demonstrate wide review and the Director approves. That would need a transition request.
Gary: That part can be done at
another meeting. Is the marking things at risk something that
everyone is in agreement
... on, removing those features and moving that version
forward?
... I got a comment from Eric saying he was in agreement with
that assuming we put the features back in later.
Nigel: We have a Chairing vacuum
here which as ever I'm reluctant to step in to.
... We need consensus on this and a CfC for publishing a
CR.
Philippe: Is there any objection?
Nigel: Our Decision Policy is 2
weeks. The pull request decision policy began when the pull was
opened, arguably.
... We still need a document to review with a proposal to
publish as an updated CR.
Gary: I believe the updated
snapshot is what we want to publish.
... We don't need to remove the at risk features yet.
Philippe: I guess we need a separate CfC email sent to the list to start the 2 weeks period.
Nigel: That's what we normally do.
Philippe: The proposal is to
update the document as per the pull request. Can we have a link
to the document generated
... by the pull request?
Gary: No
Philippe: We need pr preview enabled.
Nigel: Will you take that offline to send a proposal to the WG Philippe?
Philippe: Yes I will do
Nigel: Thank you
Nigel: Please do review the pull requests on the Charter repo
group: [discussion about enabling PR preview on VTT repo]
Nigel: We're out of time for today, thank you everyone. [adjourns meeting]