Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have DAPT, Rechartering, and I kept the low latency and controls issue on the agenda,
… in case there is anything to discuss there.
… Any other business?
Gary: TPAC planning?
Nigel: Yes, we should do that, since there's been some communication since I put the agenda out.
… Any more?
Nothing more
DAPT
Nigel: Thanks Cyril for opening a PR with the first draft.
… Before we get there, just a reminder that we published the DAPT-REQs draft WG Note
… and I also wrote a blog post about it.
Nigel: There has been some response to those that I haven't got around to dealing with yet.
… Cyril, in the last hour I approved the pull request so we can get started.
Cyril: Thank you, sorry I couldn't do it before your break!
Nigel: That's okay!
Cyril: We should treat it as a starting point. I'm happy to receive feedback.
… It doesn't really have AD in it yet, I was counting on you to add that bit Nigel.
Nigel: OK!
Cyril: I would encourage two types of review.
… First the data model, terminology, fit against the requirements
… (or fix the requirements if they're incomplete)
… And then a second pass to agree the mapping to the TTML syntax.
… Until the model is frozen it may not be that useful to talk about the syntax.
… That's my suggestion.
Nigel: I agree about the data model and terminology - in the way of these things,
… the spec defines a sort of jargon, and it may be non-intuitive to some readers in the web context.
… For example "event" might suggest javascript to some readers.
Cyril: Anything else on this?
Nigel: Suggest merging the pull request so we can publish it on GitHub Pages.
Cyril: I'll do that later today.
Nigel: I can't remember if we sorted publication on gh-pages or not, but I can do that if need be.
… Any more on this from anyone?
Nothing more
Rechartering status update
Nigel: We had a number of pull requests open for ages on the draft charter, with approvals.
… Yesterday I just merged them.
… The one remaining is:
Nigel: I've forgotten some of the details but I think Apple said they'd think about other alternative
… proposals.
Gary: Yes they said they would.
Nigel: Now we've had chance to consider this the question to ask ourselves is if we can live with Apple's
… proposal or if it is so against our changes that we can't accept it.
Cyril: At least make the terms consistent in advancing to PR or advancing beyond CR.
Nigel: They're the same thing, just described differently.
Cyril: If we don't meet this SHOULD then we would have to justify it?
Nigel: Yes
Gary: I think we would likely need to do it anyway.
… Apple's position is they would prefer that SHOULD be a MUST.
Pierre: I think that leaving that second paragraph in just postpones the discussion.
… The root of what's happening here is that folks are trying to impose in Charters things that
… are not imposed in the Process.
… We can jump around this but we're delaying the discussion.
Gary: That is what is happening because it's easier to do it that way, for better or worse.
Pierre: It's usually easier to deal with these things up-front.
… Vivid memories of EME where this didn't help.
… If we don't do it now we'll have it again very soon.
Gary: We did ask Apple to restart the Process level discussions.
Pierre: For the record, I've been trying to have discussions with Apple about this and they have not been responsive.
Nigel: As Gary says, the intent is to roll it into Charters first, because they consider it to be
… better to have experience in Charters first before changing the Process.
Pierre: For the HRM I don't think we are likely to see a second implementation.
Nigel: I think they would argue that in that case it ought not to be a web standard.
Pierre: I don't understand the goal.
Gary: Their goal is to demonstrate interop so that two independent readers of the spec generate the same
… outcome from their implementations.
Pierre: I would equally claim, as suggested by Nigel a while back, that have two folks, one independently
… creating content and another creating an implementation, agree on the expected result, then
… that is an equally legitimate test.
Cyril: You could claim that there's an implementation behind the content creation so you would claim
… there are two implementations.
Pierre: Exactly. I think one creates content and one processes it is a fine test.
… I am concerned that using this to gauge industry interest would be a terrible tool.
Gary: I don't think it's that.
… They consider that just creating content isn't good enough.
Pierre: I see no factual basis for why this is not a good way to test the interpretation of a spec.
Gary: One potential issue is that somebody could be writing it against the HRM as opposed to against the spec.
… They could be testing their content against the implementation.
Pierre: Sure, and someone could fork an implementation, tweak it, and call it theirs!
Nigel: This comes down to whether or not the Chairs could tell a story to exit CR to the Director
… based on this Charter and succeed.
… By the way, another option is to keep their PR wording and modify our additional wording to clarify the intent.
… For example it may be that we've slipped into TTWG jargon about implementation types and the AC
… does not generally share the same understanding of our terminology.
Gary: Yes, it could be that changing "content" to "content creating implementation" would help.
… The other thing is how many times can we extend the Charter before they say No?!
Pierre: The other option is to stay at CR forever. I don't think that's a good solution.
Gary: Agree that's not a good solution.
Nigel: Also agree, but note that Apple's view was that due to other changes e.g. to patent policy,
… being at CR permanently is a lot safer than it used to be.
… I quite strongly feel that staying at CR forever is a really bad message to send, particularly if it becomes
… a widespread practice across W3C.
Cyril: Apologies, have to leave the call.
Nigel: Practical choices:
… 1. Reject the PR
… 2. Ask Apple for other alternatives
… 3. Accept the PR
Gary: We can ask Apple for alternatives regardless.
Nigel: If we accept the PR they won't generate alternatives.
Atsushi: For option 1, our extension of the current charter is until the end of June.
… Accepting 1 will result in FO Council, and I assume that we proceed with the current
… checklist. I can't believe that FO will be the result to meet with our desire.
… For option 3 it is simpler, we can just recharter as soon as possible.
Gary: My thought is we ask Apple for alternatives and then before the Charter expires,
… we could then potentially accept the PR and recharter, and push Apple to restart the Process discussions.
Nigel: Listening to the discussion I think my conclusion is we do want to assess other alternatives,
… and the lack of strong statements in favour or against means we are all sitting on the fence.
Atsushi: We should push Process CG and Apple to consider these implementation related items within
… the Process.
Nigel: I have raised issues before and it is a matter of reinvigorating discussion on those issues.
Atsushi: I should rephrase: I would like Chairs to push issues into Process CG as soon as possible.
… Are they open already?
Gary: There are several
Nigel: Yes we do
Atsushi: Ah, sorry for that.
github: https://
SUMMARY: Group discussed on call today. Ambivalent towards PR, would like Apple to generate other alternative suggestions.
TPAC Planning
Nigel: Before he left the call Cyril mentioned that he is still willing to attend TPAC in person if we go ahead.
Gary: We requested time for Thursday and Friday but we don't have any set plans or times currently.
… I completed the Chair's WBS survey
Nigel: Thank you for that.
Gary: We have a draft schedule that we have until the 14th to adjust.
… (Tuesday)
Nigel: I'm tempted to suggest that we meet on the two mornings of Thursday and Friday
Gary: Good for Andreas joining remotely.
… Also Chris Needham asked if we want to meet jointly on Thursday morning.
Andreas: Thanks Gary, I will be unlikely to be there in person, so daytime or early evening Europe time would be best for me to join remotely.
Nigel: Gary, should you and I come up with some time proposals offline to give us reasonable
… meeting duration to cover our agenda?
Gary: Yes, sounds good.
Nigel: Should we say yes for a joint meeting with MEIG?
… I would like to say yes because I think it might be a good place to begin discussing the challenges
… with the video HTML element.
Gary: Yes, would we want the Media WG there too?
Nigel: Yes possibly.
… I'll discuss that with Chris. We may also have other agenda items of course.
Nigel: Anything else for TPAC?
Nothing for now
Meeting Close
Nigel: [checks that there's nothing to discuss on the remaining agenda items]
… Thanks everyone, let's adjourn a few minutes early today. [adjourns meeting]