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
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]
15:02:08 [nigel]
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]
15:07:16 [nigel]
-> §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]
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]
-> Guide to HR
15:20:47 [glenn_]
glenn_ has joined #tt
15:20:50 [glenn_]
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]
-> 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]
-> 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 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 nigel
17:35:31 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #tt