Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

10 October 2019


Andreas, Atsushi, Gary, Glenn, Nigel, Pierre, Thierry
Nigel, Gary

Meeting minutes

Log: https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌10/‌10-tt-irc

This meeting

Nigel: Today's focus is on getting Horizontal Review going, particularly for TTML2 and IMSC 1.2
… Any other business?

Glenn: Query re process matter regarding TTML2 2nd Ed, related to the HR.

Nigel: OK let's raise that in the TTML2 HR agenda item
… any others?

group: [no other business]

TTML2 Horizontal Review process on the ED

Glenn: I was reviewing the process document §6.7.2 about revising a Rec

<glenn> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌Process-20190301/#revised-rec

§6.7.2 Revising a Recommendation

Glenn: I was noting that from what I can tell, just above it in §6.7 it shows a drawing, that if a substantive
… change is being made to a Rec with no new features then it can go to CR directly, maybe with Director's approval,
… without going to WD.
… A WG may request publication of a CR without passing through earlier maturity levels but do need to pass WR
… I want to verify that is the process we will use.

Nigel: That was my expectation, yes.

Glenn: I should change the milestone to say CR instead of FPWD.

Nigel: Yes, you probably should.

Glenn: I've heard some numbers bandied about for timelines for HR and some sounded outlandish to me.
… Is there anything written down?

Nigel: It's in our new Charter. that we cannot plan for entering CR less than 3 months after beginning HR.
… It is possible to move on if all the HR groups come back quickly I think.

Atsushi: We do plan for continual engagement with the HR groups.

Glenn: Particularly because we are not having FPWD, and we are going to CR to start with, and we have only a
… small number of substantive changes, maybe we can encourage our reviewers in HR to take less than 3 months to
… do their work.

Nigel: The Charter doesn't say anything about _how_ the CR was entered, i.e. where from, it's the same Rec -> CR as
… FWPD -> CR

Glenn: So I should be moving to prepare a CR document.

<glenn> https://‌w3c.github.io/‌ttml2/‌ttml2-changes.html

Nigel: We will need that but not yet, we should first look at the list of changes updated earlier today.

Glenn: On this changes document I only included 1st Ed Rec -> the current ED, and only included the
… substantive changes. I separated them into syntactical changes and semantic (only) changes.
… The ones that affect syntax and semantics are in the first Syntax changes section.
… I summarised and somewhat abbreviated the title of the pull request and included a link to the pull request.
… It is a slightly different format than previously.
… I was hoping it would allow more precise review of the changes.

Nigel: I think this list is short enough that each HR group will be able to work out what is relevant to them directly.

Glenn: I agree.

Nigel: The mechanism for initiating HR: I had hoped to catch up on that by now but haven't managed to do it.

Guide to HR

<glenn_> https://‌www.w3.org/‌2019/‌Process-20190301/#wide-review

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)
… we should use it.

Draft TTWG Charter

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
… changes based on feedback.
… The other groups will have their own processes.
… We will probably need to complete a self-assessment privacy and security section, which I believe is unchanged
… as a result of any of the changes.
… The xlink semantic changes would be the closest, but I think we've only made improvements.
… I think I must have the action to begin the HR process. If I find any detailed documents need to be created then I
… may come back for assistance.

PROPOSAL: Initiate the Horizontal Review process for the current TTML2 2nd Ed ED

Nigel: Any objections, questions, further comments?

group: [no objections]

Resolved: Initiate the Horizontal Review process for the current TTML2 2nd Ed ED

Nigel: Any more actions associated with this?

Glenn: When do you expect to be able to issue the invitation to review?

Nigel: It'd better be before the end of next week since I'm on vacation for a couple of weeks after that.

Glenn: 15th October?

Nigel: 16th is more likely!

Glenn: OK

IMSC 1.2 Horizontal Review

Nigel: I think the process is a little different here. We're adding a feature so we need a FPWD.

IMSC 1.2 FPWD Pull Request

Pierre: Yes, annex L has the summary of substantive changes.

Nigel: Right, this pull request makes no changes other than to fix the state to be a FPWD
… Any changes to the SOTD needed? I don't think so.
… You changed [[HTTP]] to [[HTTP11]]?

Pierre: Specref wasn't happy. Any one HTTP will work, right?

Glenn: By the way did you update the links to all the TTML2 feature designators that pointed to the non-final version?

Pierre: I think that's been corrected.

Nigel: They look fixed to me, in §6 anyway

Pierre: Yes they've all been fixed.

Nigel: Don't the constraints on #font need to be listed in the substantive changes?

Pierre: That's not what we did in the past, people need to use the redline to see what has really changed.
… A question though is if that list at the end is sufficient, the combination of Annex L plus GitHub or do we also
… need a text file with a list of changes?

Nigel: Any views?

Gary: Sounds like that would be sufficient. As long as you can easily find the changes.

Nigel: There's no link to the GitHub changes.

Pierre: I see different levels, [scribe missed, but it was detail levels from summary to github commits]

Nigel: How would a person go about getting the list of GitHub changes

Pierre: I'd look at the Commits.
… The only reason for that is to see why changes were made.
… The redline (via the diff service) is the best way to see what the changes were.

Nigel: What I'd like to do here is merge #496, resolve to publish FPWD and request the publication, in short order.
… Does anyone think that would be a bad thing to do given that FPWD doesn't represent consensus, and our Decision Policy?

group: [silence]

PROPOSAL: Merge #496 and request publication of FPWD

Nigel: Is it true we cannot do this with echidna for the first publication?

Atsushi: Only for FPWD we cannot use echidna so I need to request it.
… There should be a period for consensus on the mailing list.

Nigel: Yes we can wait to 10 working days for our Decision Policy but I was proposing an exception to that given the case.

Glenn: I say we go ahead.

Nigel: Is that okay Atsushi?

Atsushi: Sorry I actually have no knowledge on that point!

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.

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
… email to say it is decided.

Glenn: Atsushi, generally it's been my experience that the Chairmen of the group can put the question to the group and
… if there is no objection then the group's position stands. I have never heard of a case where a team representative has
… objected over the wishes over the group and the Chairmen. Do you wish to do so?

Atsushi: I just want to get clear.

Pierre: Maybe the easy way out is to go forward with the proper review period but in the meantime we can send the
… horizontal review groups the ED so we get the best of all worlds.

Nigel: OK that works, good idea, then we haven't broken any policies and can still make progress.

Resolved: Merge #496 and request publication of FPWD

Nigel: This marks the beginning of the 2 week review period, which still stands.

PROPOSAL: Based on the ED, request horizontal review

Nigel: Any objections?

group: [no objections]

Resolved: Based on the ED, request horizontal review

Atsushi: Usually I am asked to give some story to be pointed to the W3C blog or other places on the FPWD point.
… If anything exists please let me know.

Nigel: Would you mind drafting something Pierre?

Pierre: Can I see an example?

Atsushi: I will send you one.

Nigel: I can do this if Pierre cannot - I'm just trying to manage my workload!

Pierre: Me too

Nigel: I would go back to the requirements that we decided to meet for this version and paraphrase those.

Nigel: I will raise an action on the ttwg repo for Atushi to raise the request to publish FPWD and we can discuss the
… contents of the request on that issue.

Atsushi: I will do that.

Nigel: From the perspective of HR, the changes are minimal so I'm expecting a quick review from most groups.

TTWG Charter status update

Atsushi: The W3C Strategy issue was closed for this, but I have no other information from plh

Upcoming meetings

Nigel: I have regrets for the next 3 meetings. Can I suggest that the meetings go ahead with a different Chair?

Gary: I can probably chair next week but I'm out for the one after because of Demuxed.

Nigel: We're looking at cancelling 24th October then, can you do 31st?

Gary: Yes I can probably make it.

Nigel: Thank you!

Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're done for today! [adjourns meeting]

Summary of resolutions

  1. Initiate the Horizontal Review process for the current TTML2 2nd Ed ED
  2. Merge #496 and request publication of FPWD
  3. Based on the ED, request horizontal review
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by Bert Bos's scribe.perl version Mon Apr 15 13:11:59 2019 UTC, a reimplementation of David Booth's scribe.perl. See history.