IRC log of tt on 2019-10-10
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:00:03 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #tt
- 15:00:03 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/10/10-tt-irc
- 15:00:05 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 15:00:05 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #tt
- 15:00:07 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
- 15:00:07 [trackbot]
- Date: 10 October 2019
- 15:01:09 [nigel]
- Present: Nigel, Gary
- 15:01:13 [nigel]
- Chair: Nigel, Gary
- 15:01:16 [nigel]
- scribe: nigel
- 15:01:25 [nigel]
- Regrets: Cyril
- 15:01:33 [nigel]
- Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/71
- 15:02:08 [nigel]
- Log: https://www.w3.org/2019/10/10-tt-irc
- 15:02:19 [nigel]
- Present+ Atsushi
- 15:02:57 [nigel]
- Present+ Glenn
- 15:03:29 [nigel]
- Present+ Andreas
- 15:03:38 [glenn]
- glenn has joined #tt
- 15:04:00 [nigel]
- Present+ Thierry
- 15:04:18 [glenn]
- Present+ Glenn
- 15:04:27 [nigel]
- Topic: This meeting
- 15:04:56 [nigel]
- Nigel: Today's focus is on getting Horizontal Review going, particularly for TTML2 and IMSC 1.2
- 15:05:12 [atai2]
- atai2 has joined #tt
- 15:05:24 [nigel]
- .. Any other business?
- 15:05:37 [nigel]
- Glenn: Query re process matter regarding TTML2 2nd Ed, related to the HR.
- 15:05:48 [nigel]
- Nigel: OK let's raise that in the TTML2 HR agenda item
- 15:05:59 [nigel]
- .. any others?
- 15:06:05 [nigel]
- group: [no other business]
- 15:06:22 [nigel]
- Topic: TTML2 Horizontal Review process on the ED
- 15:06:46 [nigel]
- Glenn: I was reviewing the process document §6.7.2 about revising a Rec
- 15:07:07 [glenn]
- https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#revised-rec
- 15:07:16 [nigel]
- -> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#revised-rec §6.7.2 Revising a Recommendation
- 15:07:39 [nigel]
- Glenn: I was noting that from what I can tell, just above it in §6.7 it shows a drawing, that if a substantive
- 15:07:55 [nigel]
- .. change is being made to a Rec with no new features then it can go to CR directly, maybe with Director's approval,
- 15:08:08 [nigel]
- .. without going to WD.
- 15:08:38 [nigel]
- .. A WG may request publication of a CR without passing through earlier maturity levels but do need to pass WR
- 15:08:46 [nigel]
- .. I want to verify that is the process we will use.
- 15:08:56 [nigel]
- Nigel: That was my expectation, yes.
- 15:09:15 [nigel]
- Present+ Pierre
- 15:09:28 [nigel]
- Glenn: I should change the milestone to say CR instead of FPWD.
- 15:09:32 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes, you probably should.
- 15:09:47 [nigel]
- Glenn: I've heard some numbers bandied about for timelines for HR and some sounded outlandish to me.
- 15:09:53 [nigel]
- .. Is there anything written down?
- 15:11:26 [nigel]
- Nigel: It's in our new Charter. that we cannot plan for entering CR less than 3 months after beginning HR.
- 15:11:38 [nigel]
- .. It is possible to move on if all the HR groups come back quickly I think.
- 15:11:51 [nigel]
- Atsushi: We do plan for continual engagement with the HR groups.
- 15:12:13 [nigel]
- Glenn: Particularly because we are not having FPWD, and we are going to CR to start with, and we have only a
- 15:12:29 [nigel]
- .. small number of substantive changes, maybe we can encourage our reviewers in HR to take less than 3 months to
- 15:12:31 [nigel]
- .. do their work.
- 15:13:56 [nigel]
- Nigel: The Charter doesn't say anything about _how_ the CR was entered, i.e. where from, it's the same Rec -> CR as
- 15:13:58 [nigel]
- .. FWPD -> CR
- 15:14:07 [nigel]
- Glenn: So I should be moving to prepare a CR document.
- 15:15:37 [glenn]
- https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/ttml2-changes.html
- 15:15:51 [nigel]
- Nigel: We will need that but not yet, we should first look at the list of changes updated earlier today.
- 15:16:20 [nigel]
- Glenn: On this changes document I only included 1st Ed Rec -> the current ED, and only included the
- 15:16:41 [nigel]
- .. substantive changes. I separated them into syntactical changes and semantic (only) changes.
- 15:16:52 [nigel]
- .. The ones that affect syntax and semantics are in the first Syntax changes section.
- 15:17:12 [nigel]
- .. I summarised and somewhat abbreviated the title of the pull request and included a link to the pull request.
- 15:17:19 [nigel]
- .. It is a slightly different format than previously.
- 15:17:41 [nigel]
- .. I was hoping it would allow more precise review of the changes.
- 15:19:14 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think this list is short enough that each HR group will be able to work out what is relevant to them directly.
- 15:19:24 [nigel]
- Glenn: I agree.
- 15:19:45 [nigel]
- Nigel: The mechanism for initiating HR: I had hoped to catch up on that by now but haven't managed to do it.
- 15:19:56 [nigel]
- -> https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html#horizontal-review Guide to HR
- 15:20:47 [glenn_]
- glenn_ has joined #tt
- 15:20:50 [glenn_]
- https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#wide-review
- 15:21:15 [nigel]
- Nigel: One question for us is which version of our Charter to use for HR, and given the new one is nearly finalised (I think)
- 15:21:17 [nigel]
- .. we should use it.
- 15:21:49 [nigel]
- -> https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/ Draft TTWG Charter
- 15:23:09 [nigel]
- Nigel: For TAG I will say there is no explainer per se, but that this is a Rec update based on a series of disparate
- 15:23:12 [nigel]
- .. changes based on feedback.
- 15:23:33 [nigel]
- .. The other groups will have their own processes.
- 15:23:50 [nigel]
- .. We will probably need to complete a self-assessment privacy and security section, which I believe is unchanged
- 15:23:54 [nigel]
- .. as a result of any of the changes.
- 15:24:25 [nigel]
- .. The xlink semantic changes would be the closest, but I think we've only made improvements.
- 15:25:18 [nigel]
- .. I think I must have the action to begin the HR process. If I find any detailed documents need to be created then I
- 15:25:22 [nigel]
- .. may come back for assistance.
- 15:25:59 [nigel]
- PROPOSAL: Initiate the Horizontal Review process for the current TTML2 2nd Ed ED
- 15:26:17 [nigel]
- Nigel: Any objections, questions, further comments?
- 15:26:45 [nigel]
- group: [no objections]
- 15:26:52 [nigel]
- RESOLUTION: Initiate the Horizontal Review process for the current TTML2 2nd Ed ED
- 15:27:18 [nigel]
- Nigel: Any more actions associated with this?
- 15:28:16 [nigel]
- Glenn: When do you expect to be able to issue the invitation to review?
- 15:28:31 [nigel]
- Nigel: It'd better be before the end of next week since I'm on vacation for a couple of weeks after that.
- 15:29:12 [nigel]
- Glenn: 15th October?
- 15:29:18 [nigel]
- Nigel: 16th is more likely!
- 15:29:20 [nigel]
- Glenn: OK
- 15:29:42 [nigel]
- Topic: IMSC 1.2 Horizontal Review
- 15:30:12 [nigel]
- Nigel: I think the process is a little different here. We're adding a feature so we need a FPWD.
- 15:30:41 [nigel]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/496 IMSC 1.2 FPWD Pull Request
- 15:31:11 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes, annex L has the summary of substantive changes.
- 15:32:21 [nigel]
- Nigel: Right, this pull request makes no changes other than to fix the state to be a FPWD
- 15:32:28 [nigel]
- .. Any changes to the SOTD needed? I don't think so.
- 15:33:01 [nigel]
- .. You changed [[HTTP]] to [[HTTP11]]?
- 15:33:10 [nigel]
- Pierre: Specref wasn't happy. Any one HTTP will work, right?
- 15:33:35 [nigel]
- Glenn: By the way did you update the links to all the TTML2 feature designators that pointed to the non-final version?
- 15:33:39 [nigel]
- Pierre: I think that's been corrected.
- 15:34:33 [nigel]
- Nigel: They look fixed to me, in §6 anyway
- 15:34:54 [nigel]
- Pierre: Yes they've all been fixed.
- 15:36:33 [nigel]
- Nigel: Don't the constraints on #font need to be listed in the substantive changes?
- 15:36:51 [nigel]
- Pierre: That's not what we did in the past, people need to use the redline to see what has really changed.
- 15:37:15 [nigel]
- .. A question though is if that list at the end is sufficient, the combination of Annex L plus GitHub or do we also
- 15:37:28 [nigel]
- .. need a text file with a list of changes?
- 15:37:47 [nigel]
- Nigel: Any views?
- 15:38:05 [nigel]
- Gary: Sounds like that would be sufficient. As long as you can easily find the changes.
- 15:38:59 [nigel]
- Nigel: There's no link to the GitHub changes.
- 15:40:37 [nigel]
- Pierre: I see different levels, [scribe missed, but it was detail levels from summary to github commits]
- 15:40:46 [nigel]
- Nigel: How would a person go about getting the list of GitHub changes
- 15:40:52 [nigel]
- Pierre: I'd look at the Commits.
- 15:41:11 [nigel]
- .. The only reason for that is to see why changes were made.
- 15:41:22 [nigel]
- .. The redline (via the diff service) is the best way to see what the changes were.
- 15:43:04 [nigel]
- Nigel: What I'd like to do here is merge #496, resolve to publish FPWD and request the publication, in short order.
- 15:43:25 [nigel]
- .. Does anyone think that would be a bad thing to do given that FPWD doesn't represent consensus, and our Decision Policy?
- 15:43:33 [nigel]
- group: [silence]
- 15:43:53 [nigel]
- PROPOSAL: Merge #496 and request publication of FPWD
- 15:44:09 [nigel]
- Nigel: Is it true we cannot do this with echidna for the first publication?
- 15:44:21 [nigel]
- Atsushi: Only for FPWD we cannot use echidna so I need to request it.
- 15:44:32 [nigel]
- .. There should be a period for consensus on the mailing list.
- 15:45:44 [nigel]
- Nigel: Yes we can wait to 10 working days for our Decision Policy but I was proposing an exception to that given the case.
- 15:45:48 [nigel]
- Glenn: I say we go ahead.
- 15:46:06 [nigel]
- Nigel: Is that okay Atsushi?
- 15:46:27 [nigel]
- Atsushi: Sorry I actually have no knowledge on that point!
- 15:46:56 [nigel]
- Nigel: It's just our Charter has a Decision Policy and I'm sometimes very strict about it but on this occasion I don't see the point.
- 15:47:18 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I need to record a decision so if a period is stated in the Charter I need to point to some sort of minutes or
- 15:47:24 [nigel]
- .. email to say it is decided.
- 15:47:46 [nigel]
- Glenn: Atsushi, generally it's been my experience that the Chairmen of the group can put the question to the group and
- 15:48:02 [nigel]
- .. if there is no objection then the group's position stands. I have never heard of a case where a team representative has
- 15:48:16 [nigel]
- .. objected over the wishes over the group and the Chairmen. Do you wish to do so?
- 15:48:24 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I just want to get clear.
- 15:48:40 [nigel]
- Pierre: Maybe the easy way out is to go forward with the proper review period but in the meantime we can send the
- 15:48:49 [nigel]
- .. horizontal review groups the ED so we get the best of all worlds.
- 15:49:07 [nigel]
- Nigel: OK that works, good idea, then we haven't broken any policies and can still make progress.
- 15:49:31 [nigel]
- RESOLUTION: Merge #496 and request publication of FPWD
- 15:49:43 [nigel]
- Nigel: This marks the beginning of the 2 week review period, which still stands.
- 15:49:57 [nigel]
- PROPOSAL: Based on the ED, request horizontal review
- 15:50:05 [nigel]
- Nigel: Any objections?
- 15:50:15 [nigel]
- group: [no objections]
- 15:50:22 [nigel]
- RESOLUTION: Based on the ED, request horizontal review
- 15:50:51 [nigel]
- Atsushi: Usually I am asked to give some story to be pointed to the W3C group or other places on the FPWD point.
- 15:50:57 [nigel]
- .. If anything exists please let me know.
- 15:51:03 [atsushi]
- s/W3C group/W3C blog/
- 15:51:44 [nigel]
- Nigel: Would you mind drafting something Pierre?
- 15:51:51 [nigel]
- Pierre: Can I see an example?
- 15:51:55 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I will send you one.
- 15:52:25 [nigel]
- Nigel: I can do this if Pierre cannot - I'm just trying to manage my workload!
- 15:52:27 [nigel]
- Pierre: Me too
- 15:53:32 [nigel]
- Nigel: I would go back to the requirements that we decided to meet for this version and paraphrase those.
- 15:54:05 [nigel]
- Nigel: I will raise an action on the ttwg repo for Atushi to raise the request to publish FPWD and we can discuss the
- 15:54:10 [nigel]
- .. contents of the request on that issue.
- 15:54:30 [nigel]
- Atsushi: I will do that.
- 15:55:18 [nigel]
- Nigel: From the perspective of HR, the changes are minimal so I'm expecting a quick review from most groups.
- 15:56:01 [nigel]
- Topic: TTWG Charter status update
- 15:56:21 [nigel]
- Atsushi: The W3C Strategy issue was closed for this, but I have no other information from plh
- 15:57:33 [nigel]
- Topic: Upcoming meetings
- 15:57:53 [nigel]
- Nigel: I have regrets for the next 3 meetings. Can I suggest that the meetings go ahead with a different Chair?
- 15:58:07 [nigel]
- Gary: I can probably chair next week but I'm out for the one after because of Demuxed.
- 15:58:50 [nigel]
- Nigel: We're looking at cancelling 24th October then, can you do 31st?
- 15:58:55 [nigel]
- Gary: Yes I can probably make it.
- 15:58:58 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thank you!
- 15:59:36 [nigel]
- Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're done for today! [adjourns meeting]
- 15:59:42 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes v2
- 15:59:42 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/10-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 16:03:55 [atai2]
- atai2 has left #tt
- 16:24:56 [nigel]
- scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
- 16:24:58 [nigel]
- rrsagent, make minutes v2
- 16:24:58 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/10/10-tt-minutes.html nigel
- 17:35:31 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #tt