Log: https://www.w3.org/2019/11/21-tt-irc
Nigel: [iterates through agenda]
… Any other business?
Glenn: I'd like to chat about starting a CR for TTML2 2nd Ed
Nigel: Let's cover that in the publications timeline bit
Pierre: I'd like to tackle the IMSC 1.2 FPWD publication
Nigel: OK
… Anyone else?
Philippe: I have an update.
… Unfortunately because you guys have an ongoing Charter and I ran into trouble myself
… I downgraded getting the Director to approve the new Charter. My fault, I apologise for that.
… Unfortunately as Thierry reminded us we are not supposed to do a Call for Exclusions while a Charter is not
… approved by the Director.
… I approved the publication for the FPWD but the Charter won't get approved until Wednesday next week.
… Then the publication would be Thursday next week.
Pierre: It's fine. Can we make sure that this time it is going to hold?
… For instance who is going to handle the publication?
… There was confusion in the past.
Philippe: Atsushi will look after this publication.
Pierre: Please could you send an email explaining the steps and indicating if anything is missing to proceed with publication?
Atsushi: Yes, I will update my checklist and send it.
Pierre: I'm trying to avoid hearing next Thursday that we're missing some steps.
Philippe: I understand. You guys know what you're doing, you should do it.
Atsushi: I think we need to send the request for FPWD to sys team?
Philippe: To Web Rec. Prep the document yourself and ask Pierre to double check, or Pierre could prepare it.
Atsushi: For publication request I was told I need to send a request to public-publish to sys team
<plh> webreq@w3.org
Philippe: Send it to webreq - the transition document explains the process.
… I will remind you where to find the information.
Pierre: Can we set up a meeting tomorrow afternoon to review that live? I'm already thinking we're not going to make it.
Philippe: Can we do it next week?
Pierre: It might be too late already.
Philippe: As long as we can send it no later than Wednesday then we're good.
… Can we do it after the call after it is adjourned?
Pierre; I have another meeting after.
<plh> https://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions?profile=FPWD
Nigel: If we can do it in 10 minutes lets do it now.
Philippe: There's a pointer.
<plh> 1. prepare for publishing on Thursday November 26
Atsushi: Nigel sent a two line description
Nigel: Yes I did
<plh> 2. once it passes, send an email to webreq@w3.org for them on Thursday. give the pointer https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/180
Philippe: I've made clear that the only blocker is the Charter, so I'll give you a pointer to the documentation to that
<atsushi> most of required format checks have done: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Nov/0013.html
Philippe: For Atsushi's benefit, here's an example in webreq of a previous example FPWD.
<plh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/webreq/2019Oct/0032.html example of FPWD webreq
Atsushi: I want to say I know how to do this.
Philippe: Anything else you need? Is this clear enough?
… Please copy to webreq. Pierre, I encourage you to check Atsushi's work and not wait until next Thursday.
Philippe: Please double check the link he gives is the proper document.
Pierre: Is this a zip file, a pointer to a branch? What do you expect to give to webreq?
Atsushi: I will point to a URL to our website to them.
Pierre: I can't upload to /TR
Philippe: Atsushi will upload it, and send a link for you to check that it is indeed the proper document, a double check.
… I trust Atsushi to do the right thing.
Atsushi: I will send it next Wednesday
Nigel: Can I suggest it gets uploaded tomorrow or Monday so we can check it in advance of the request on Wednesday?
Pierre: When do you think you can have it in /TR Atsushi?
Atsushi: I can do it by this weekend, before Monday.
Pierre: OK so you need me to update the publication date on the FPWD branch?
Atsushi: I can upload after changing locally, but that would help me.
… Uploading the PR is of course better.
Pierre: OK so you'll pull everything from the imsc1.2-fpwd branch?
Atsushi: Yes
Pierre: OK I will update that branch right now for a publication date of next Thursday
… Any other change you'd like?
Atsushi: I don't see any other changes required.
Nigel: When will the pubrules and link checkers get run on it?
Pierre: I ran them in the past so they should be ok
Atsushi: I ran them earlier in the month so they should be fine.
Philippe: All good? If things get delayed further put me back in the loop.
Nigel: That feels like all we need to do.
Philippe: The Charter will be released on Wednesday or Thursday.
Nigel: Will the end date be extended to the 2 years?
Philippe: I will update it to be 2 years from the publication date to reflect the proper date.
… I made some changes earlier this week and sent them to the AC.
Nigel: The one change we are not making is in response to David Singer/Apple's comment. He wanted to remove
… "online" from "online media". I thought it was a good change but don't want to block on it.
Nigel: Any views?
Pierre: Whatever gets us approved faster?
Nigel: It won't make any difference for anyone.
Philippe: It won't block anything.
Nigel: Is it more likely to get blocked if we don't make the change?
Philippe: Do I have permission to make the change if it does block it.
Nigel: Any objections?
Pierre: It was originally put in to avoid overlapping with broadcast media.
… My inclination would be not to make the change. If there's an objection then keep it as is.
Nigel: It's overtaken by events in the sense that there is a broadcast format for TTML
… I propose that we do the AC review comment and remove the word "online".
Andreas: I agree
Philippe: OK I will let the AC Review group know.
Nigel: Just to confirm no objections to removing "online" from "online media"?
group: no objections
Philippe: OK thank you
Resolved: Change the Charter wording "online media" to "media"
Nigel: This needs to include TTML2 CR
Glenn: There are no issues or PRs open against TTML2 2nd Ed so I'd like to proceed with preparing the CR version.
… At this point it is basically a strictly editorial no spec change task to swap out the entities dtd.
… The only issue is what date should I prepare it for.
… Do we need to issue a CfC or not?
… If we put a 10 day CfC then the earliest would be Dec 5 if we allow 2 weeks from today.
… If I prepare that document today what date should I put in for publication?
PROPOSAL: Publish CR of TTML2 2nd Edition
Nigel: Any comments or objections?
group: [none]
Resolved: Publish CR of TTML2 2nd Edition
Nigel: The decision policy review period will expire on Dec 5
Philippe: We can send a transition request on that day
… Then the earliest publication date would be Dec 12.
<plh> https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2019-12-12
Nigel: I think that's your answer Glenn
Philippe: Who will prepare the transition request?
<plh> https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/new/choose
Nigel: I would like to ask the team contact to do this. Atsushi do you need some words for this?
Glenn: This is a CR for a revised Rec?
Philippe: The CR-New template is used, this will be an Amended Rec
… We just called it Amended as a sub-category - it still says CR at the top
Glenn: But it doesn't go through FPWD process
Philippe: You still have to demonstrate WR as part of that
<plh> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#revised-rec
Nigel: Wait up, we haven't had HR comments back from all the groups yet, and we might need to wait up to 3 months
… according to our Charter.
Nigel: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/75 says we began HR on 16th Oct
Philippe: So we can publish CR on Jan 17 unless we get HR responses earlier.
… You should follow up on your HR requests saying we think we're ready, do you mind if we publish?
Nigel: OK that's an action for me
Glenn: As a follow-up would it be prudent for me to go ahead and prepare a draft of the CR document itself and at
… least have it available in the GitHub repo?
<plh> https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2020-01-28
Nigel: yes, if you can leave it in an unmerged PR.
Philippe: Earliest date if no positive responses is Jan 28
Pierre: I like Glenn's suggestion. We should set everything up for Jan 28 but in the meantime we are completely
… ready and it will happen automatically.
Philippe: Jan 28 assuming transition request no later than Jan 21
Glenn: OK I'll approve that and then if we get full approval we can change the dates and move it faster.
Philippe: That sounds good
Glenn: I'll do that then
Philippe: Are you ready to go to PR too?
Glenn: We have all the tests, so we need to make an implementation report
Philippe: You need a draft IR for the transition request. Because this is for amending, the Director would expect to
… see an actual IR with something in it.
… By the way Process 2020 has a proposal allowing Amended Rec without going all the way back to CR
Nigel: Have we got enough implementations?
Glenn: Yes I think we're in good shape there. I know at least one implementation, I need to check on a 2nd one.
Philippe: Do you expect to retire the previous Rec
Glenn: The 1st Ed will be marked as obsolete
Philippe: In the SOTD make it clear what you expect. We don't want to ask AC too many questions. If it is in the SOTD
… then it's good enough. When we publish the Rec we automatically implement whatever was in there.
<plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml/all/
Philippe: Reminder that there is a story to tell, which is at the above link
… That's everything we know about TTML from /TR. Tell us what you expect to find there when you publish as Rec.
Glenn: This doesn't change TTML1 3rd Ed.
<plh> Chairs dashboard: https://www.w3.org/PM/Groups/chairboard.html?gid=34314
Nigel: I don't think there are any other publications coming down the line in the immediate feature.
… For the modules and the AD profile of TTML2 I don't think any is ready to go.
… My time is more squeezed than normal at the moment and I expect to do the AD profile early next year and then
… move on to the Live extensions.
… Any timelines or progress plans for any other modules?
group: no
Nigel: I will assume we are not ready then until someone says we are!
<plh> https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/all/ (for IMSC)
Nigel: I propose to cancel our calls on 26th Dec and 2nd Jan.
group: quiet acceptance
Glenn: 28th Nov is a holiday in the US, regrets from me for that day.
Nigel: Please add regrets to the GitHub issue for our meeting on 28th, and I'll make a call on cancelling it if there are
… too many.
Pierre: Re the 28th, any particular urgent agenda items?
Nigel: Not that I'm aware of now
Pierre: I will not send regrets just in case there is an issue with IMSC 1.2
Nigel: OK by default we will go ahead next week
Pierre: If IMSC 1.2 goes ahead with publication and Glenn is absent then it will be hard to make any other progress
Nigel: I agree
… As well as sending regrets, please send agenda items.
Philippe: We've been having conversations in the AB about Process 2020.
… We're getting feedback that it is hard to understand, including in the AB.
… We need to communicate Process 2020 and understand it.
… How much does this WG care about this subject.
Nigel: If you're saying you're aware that comms about 2020 have not been clear then it's unfair to ask if we care!
Philippe: We did a presentation at TPAC - if you want a dedicated session and are interested then I'm happy to
… help this group. We will do a consultation in January, but not tailored to the TTWG.
Nigel: [tries to summarise some key points that would be relevant to TTWG in Process 2020]
Pierre: I've not been studying it closely. It would be good to have an explainer of the practical implications for this group.
… Is there a white paper that explains the basic differences?
Philippe: Yes but it's a long one. We don't have anything tailored to this group.
Pierre: Please make that white paper available to this group when it is published.
Philippe: I'll add a link to the explainer. Feel free to add an agenda item and ask me to attend a future meeting.
… Some groups don't see versioning as important, but you guys do. Not all groups are interested in Living Standards.
Nigel: OK we'll consider that again when there's an explainer available and maybe come back to you.
Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're a little over time. Plan for next week is to go ahead, to be reviewed when we have a
… clearer idea of the regrets and the agenda items. [adjourns meeting]