Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have IMSC HRM
… And I'd like to add an extra item to that, which is about tests.
… Also we have Charter
… And A question about Registries
… Any other business or points to make sure we cover?
group has no other business
IMSC HRM
Nigel: Good news, we published the FPWD, alongside a tweet and blog post.
… Thank you Pierre and Atsushi for getting that done.
… Call for Exclusion has been issued.
Merging the PR
Pierre: Were any other changes made other than the publication date so I can merge the PR?
Atsushi: I edited the github reference and the date.
Pierre: Okay, thanks.
Atsushi: There are some respec issues that made me have to edit the HTML, but they should get fixed.
Pierre: Should I change only the date or do you want to make those changes on the PR?
Atsushi: I think only the date.
Pierre: OK, thanks.
Should we initiate the HR process immediately?
Nigel: The sooner we initiate Horizontal Review the better.
… I wonder if we're ready to do it now?
… We have an empty Privacy and Security Considerations section, so we should write something there.
… It should be quite easy to write.
… The nature of this, i.e. specifying a tool that does static analysis of a document, means that there isn't really any consideration at all.
… Does that seem fair?
Pierre: Yes.
Nigel: I will raise an issue for this.
… I've raised https://
… Any other thoughts on HR?
Pierre: How do we actually start it? Is it automatic?
Nigel: It's not automatic
… But there are tools that help, I think.
<atsushi> https://
Atsushi: We need to follow the checklist in the document I just pasted. After that I can take an action to add to the HR repositories.
… One minor question. Do we assume the document is already stable?
Nigel: There's one issue open on the content I think.
Atsushi: I understand that. If we assume we develop some section more then it may be better to wait.
Nigel: My sense is that resolving the open issue about span will have no impact on HR.
Pierre: My sense is that any change for that issue will have no impact on HR.
… Experience is that starting HR sooner is helpful.
… It should be uneventful because the content has already been published.
… We could go through the checklist now.
… How do you want to do it Nigel?
Nigel: I think I'd like 2 members to volunteer and go through and comment on the ticket.
… Because this should be easy, hopefully we will have the same conclusions.
… Doing offline more efficient, if we have something to discuss then if need be we can do it on a call.
Pierre: Happy to volunteer to do that.
Nigel: Me too.
… That's now assigned to me and Pierre on the Github issue.
… Any other questions or thoughts on Horizontal Review?
Atsushi: Do we want to get wider review from external WGs or external parties?
Pierre: Yes we definitely should send this to ATSC. We've done this in the past.
… It's a courtesy FYI so they're aware of it.
Nigel: It's more than that - to get to CR we have to demonstrate Wide Review.
Pierre: The Charter requires us to do it, right?
Nigel: Yes.
… Since this is content from a previous Rec we could try to make the case that it's already had review, but
… I think it's better to go through the cycle as normal for a new spec.
Pierre: Since we've made some changes we should highlight what we've done and the clarifications we have made.
Nigel: Yes
… Atsushi did that answer your question?
Atsushi: Yes
Nigel: Any more on HR?
Pierre: Do you want to do tag team on the text to send, and you can send it Nigel?
Nigel: Thanks, that'd be great.
IMSC HRM tests
Nigel: We already have imsc-tests - do we want to create a subfolder in there for HRM tests or
… create a new repo just for HRM tests?
Pierre: I vote for a separate repo but happy to be convinced otherwise if someone has strong views.
Nigel: I have no strong views.
… (on this!)
Pierre: The IMSC HRM project I have worked on has some tests so we could use those.
Nigel: Sounds like a good start.
… Should we create a new repo called imsc-hrm-tests for those then?
Pierre: Sounds good to me
<atsushi> +1
Nigel: Atsushi, please could you do that?
Atsushi: Yes, let me take an action for next week.
Nigel: done, as https://
Nigel: Thank you - when that's created we can look at populating it later.
Charter
Nigel: I think we're getting there with this - I will need to add IMSC HRM as a New Technical Report.
Cyril: Many of you go, Netflix has been working on a project called Timed Text Authoring Lineage,
… and it's an activity that we want to bring to W3C.
… Nigel I'm wondering if we can add something to the Charter for that?
… Do you want me to make a formal presentation of the activity to the Group?
… What's the process?
Nigel: Good question. I think there's a fighting chance that we have one deliverable that covers
… both TTAL and Audio Description requirements, and if we can do that, then we should.
Cyril: Is it a Technical Report or a Rec Track document?
Nigel: Both.
… What I think would work well is if you could update the requirements and use cases for AD to include the requirements of TTAL.
Cyril: Okay but do we need to do anything in the Charter?
Nigel: Would it work if...
Cyril: Change "TTML Profile for Audio Description" to "TTML Profile for Audio Description and Dubbing Workflows"?
Nigel: That's what I was going to suggest!
Pierre: Can we put on screen the latest draft of the Charter? It's a good opportunity to review what it says.
… It seems weird that we have to anticipate all the potential applications of TTML that we may want over 2 years?
… Can we write the Charter so we don't have to explicitly list those.
Nigel: We already have: "The Working Group MAY develop additional Recommendation-track and non-Recommendation-track Technical Reports."
Pierre: Okay.
Nigel: But if we know we want to do this then it makes sense to signal it.
Atsushi: Actually if there is a resolution in the WG we can add anything to the new TR section even if we don't have a finished draft yet.
… Some WGs have the ability to incubate new Rec track specifications. The WG lists potential specs under incubation in a community group.
… We can list any document if we consider we might be able to work on it in the period of the Charter.
Nigel: Yes, that's what we do now, which is fine.
Atsushi: On the other hand we can re-charter at any point to include new specs in the TR section.
Nigel: Oh, that's horrible!
… Every time we have to recharter it's pain, admin headache and we would rather do less of that.
… I would rather have a more flexible charter.
Pierre: I think we need to write that the group will work on profiles of TTML.
… If during review someone is not happy then we can talk about it.
Nigel: I will prepare a PR for that, and to remove TTML3 too.
Pierre: Please point me to it and I will be happy to join the conversation.
Nigel: Will do.
Charter/Process crossover
Nigel: Atsushi added this to the agenda.
… The new Process has come into operation, Process 2021.
… It allows for a more formal process for managing Registries.
… We do have some Registries.
… Question: Do we want to migrate our Registries to the new process?
… Is that the right question?
Atsushi: Philippe will send that question to Chairs early next week.
… We could include it in Other Deliverables section. The text is already quite wide.
Cyril: Sorry, I'm not clear on the actions needed to adopt TTAL.
… I can propose changes to the Charter wording and the Requirements document.
… Is that all? We could schedule a meeting where I present this work.
Nigel: That's a good idea.
Cyril: I'm going to give a presentation to the EBU Timed Text Group, so if we can do it
… in 1st meeting December would be good if it's not too late for the Charter.
Nigel: We can widen the Charter now and then adopt the work in WG calls later.
Cyril: Thank you [leaves the call]
Nigel: Back onto Registries, I propose that we say in Other deliverables that the WG will consider migrating Registries.
… Again, to give us the freedom to make that change later.
… How does that sound?
Atsushi: I think that works.
Andreas: Yes, sounds good
Nigel: Thanks.
Atsushi: Just a reminder to Chairs please take a look at the message I sent earlier in the week.
… There are some minor things we need to change.
Nigel: Okay, I don't think I noticed that, let me check.
… Oh I see, yes, I have it. Okay, I will respond.
… I think we need to get the Charter finished quite soon to meet the timeline?
Atsushi: HR is running - Accessibility completed and i18n will complete on Tuesday so I hope we can close those reviews
… and meet the process in a timely manner.
… We need to finish before going to W3M and have at least 2 more weeks.
Nigel: Am I right in thinking we need to be finished by end of November?
Atsushi: We may be already a bit late for that.
Nigel: I mean before going to W3M
Atsushi: And AC review.
… AC review should be 4 or 6 weeks.
… It's already a bit late.
Nigel: I think we should make progress as fast as possible and then if we need 1 month extension on the current charter that is
… usually granted easily.
Atsushi: Yes, 1 month or 3 month is usually fine.
Nigel: Yes, that's what I understand. Okay.
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone, let's adjourn for today. [adjourns meeting]