15:00:26 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:00:26 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/01-tt-irc 15:00:28 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:00:29 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:52 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/225 15:01:02 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/08/18-tt-minutes.html 15:02:57 Present: Andreas, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre 15:03:06 Chair: Gary, Nigel 15:03:12 Topic: This meeting 15:03:18 Present+ Hew 15:05:02 Present+ Atsushi 15:05:19 scribe: nigel 15:05:43 Nigel: Today we have TPAC schedule finalisation, FO Council preparation for the Charter Formal Objection, 15:05:55 .. DAPT if we can, - anything else? 15:06:09 Pierre: Request FO Council prep first because I have to leave before the end of the call 15:06:22 Nigel: OK. Anything else? 15:06:25 No other business 15:06:56 Hew_ has joined #tt 15:07:15 Andreas: AOB item - the SDO meeting that Nigel, Gary and Pierre attended, if you think it's useful 15:07:33 Nigel: Good point, I did report on behalf of this group in effect. 15:07:46 Topic: Rechartering status update 15:08:14 Nigel: My understanding is that Atsushi is preparing materials to support the new FO Council process 15:08:22 .. that is being run in an experimental way. 15:08:33 Atsushi: The current process notes that Team should prepare a document about the timeline 15:08:44 .. and objection with analysis of the situation 15:08:53 .. and once the Team has reviewed that document it will be provided to both parties, 15:09:02 .. the Objector and the Group, to get comments. 15:09:10 .. Then it will be brought up to the FO Council. 15:09:24 .. For now, I am drafting a document to be presented to W3 Team. 15:09:41 pal has joined #tt 15:09:44 Nigel: Thank you. Are there any questions you have for us? 15:10:13 Atsushi: My current direction to draft the document analysis is to present that the exception 15:10:31 .. only is needed for the IMSC-HRM but the WG is willing to follow the normal 2 independent implementations 15:10:36 .. approach for the other Rec track documents. 15:10:50 .. If the WG brings the current draft Charter to the FO Council there is nothing about such limitation 15:11:13 .. and we do not state anything about validators having different requirements. 15:12:05 .. For now if we just bring the current situation the Team's question will be whether the WG will provide 15:12:19 .. some updated proposal to state IMSC-HRM is the only exception, 15:12:37 .. and also, if that direction will be taken, I need to write more detail about the situation related to IMSC-HRM 15:12:42 .. implementations and use cases. 15:13:07 .. If there is any other use case required by consuming organisation to use the existing IMSC-HRM library, 15:13:18 .. if we can provide that documentation then the document will be more complete. 15:13:43 Nigel: Thank you, any questions for Atsushi? 15:13:50 Pierre: I look forward to seeing the write-up. 15:14:44 q+ 15:15:14 Nigel: Just to note that although the IMSC-HRM may have provided some motivation for the 15:15:28 .. proposed Charter changed wording, it was designed to accommodate all WG Rec track documents. 15:15:40 .. So far it has not been a proposal to make an exception for IMSC-HRM. I think that may be what you are 15:15:46 .. asking for Atsushi, or proposing? 15:17:06 Atsushi: To be honest, my current draft analysis depends on making IMSC-HRM to be the only 15:17:41 .. exception from 2 independent implementations, so if some updated proposed charter can be agreed 15:17:55 .. aligned with that, within the group, that might be a good thing to bring to the FO Council. 15:18:06 .. If the WG cannot agree with that direction I need to rethink my analysis. 15:18:28 Pierre: When will the draft document be available? 15:19:16 Atsushi: The process is to get material from the group, review with the team, then share the output. 15:19:23 Nigel: I think the question was about a date. 15:19:31 Atsushi: Depends when I can get material from the group. 15:19:47 Pierre: What is the exact material? 15:20:03 Atsushi: The use cases for IMSC-HRM are needed to complete the document. 15:20:19 .. TTWG is stating only one OS implementation is widely used, but I couldn't show any use case 15:20:28 .. for that currently. If there's any use case I can include that helps. 15:20:51 q+ to ask why intent to use is now part of the consideration 15:21:01 ack ata 15:21:17 Andreas: Just referring to the proposal from Atsushi or the reference to a change in the Charter 15:21:34 .. to make the IMSC-HRM the only document that would be an exception from the 2 implementation rule, 15:21:46 .. we discussed this option in a previous meeting and some of the members have commented that this 15:21:59 .. could be a possible compromise but there was no agreement to go forward and redraft the Charter 15:22:08 .. in that way. At that time the idea was to make it a proposal to the Objector. 15:22:21 .. We discussed that at another meeting and there were members that said the Objector would be 15:22:30 .. unwilling to accept this, but there was no further action. 15:22:59 Nigel: Mine too, and further, my recollection from discussion with the Objector is that they would 15:23:06 .. simply remove IMSC-HRM from the Charter in that case. 15:23:25 Atsushi: FO Council can remove any objection from the Objector if they decide. They will decide 15:23:39 .. on behalf of the Director so it is formally known as a Director Decision, so even if the Objector 15:23:51 .. is still objecting to the direction, Council can overrule that. 15:24:10 .. And Council is formed to make a final decision on any formal objection. 15:25:15 .. In other words, if FO Council decides to force the WG to accept the objection then 15:25:19 .. we need to do so. 15:25:44 .. So it is a single stage court that makes the final decision. 15:26:20 Pierre: The statement is that only one open source implementation is necessary 15:26:28 .. and that it is likely that there will be only one because there is no need by industry for more 15:26:42 .. Atsushi I am going to send you an email with some specific questions that will need a formal 15:26:58 .. answer because there is some misunderstanding here. 15:27:14 .. But when will the FO Council meet? We need a date of some kind, otherwise it will be never. 15:27:29 Atsushi: The process is still being developed. I believe for us it depends on when the Team 15:27:36 .. can finalise the document for them. 15:28:13 q? 15:28:15 ack n 15:28:15 nigel, you wanted to ask why intent to use is now part of the consideration 15:28:49 Nigel: So you are asking for more information about intended usage? 15:29:11 Atsushi: For example that some named companies are requiring that the documents they receive meet the requirements of the HRM. 15:29:52 +1 to Nigel 15:30:04 Nigel: So far in TTWG there has never been any requirement to demonstrate intent to use specifications. 15:30:25 .. If you are telling us now that this is needed, that is a major change that we should have had notification of. 15:30:43 Atsushi: The Council needs to understand the use case for the IMSC-HRM. 15:30:59 Pierre: If the Process said that you must have two independent implementations then we would not be having 15:31:11 .. this discussion. The Process requires implementation experience. 15:31:34 Atsushi: Yes, it is a Should in the Process. That is the consideration for implementation experience. 15:31:47 Pierre: We're reading different documents. 15:31:58 -> https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#implementation-experience Implementation Experience in the Process 15:32:11 Pierre: Where does it say Should require two different implementations? 15:32:17 q+ 15:32:25 .. Implementation experience [quotes process] 15:32:46 .. No exhaustive list, ... the Director will consider ... - nowhere does it say must or should have 15:33:01 .. two independent implementations. It is not a requirement. If it were a requirement we would not have 15:33:10 .. this discussion. Apple thinks it is a requirement, but it is not. 15:33:14 q+ 15:33:22 Gary: They want it to be a requirement. That is the root of this discussion. 15:33:29 .. They want it to go through the Charter. 15:33:44 Atsushi: This is why the FO Council is under discussion. 15:33:55 ack gkatsev 15:33:59 Pierre: I would not argue on the popularity of the HRM, but that it is not a requirement. 15:35:31 [unminuted conversation] 15:38:30 ack atai 15:39:09 Andreas: I'm sure that with offline working with members of the group it is possible to prepare a document 15:39:14 .. that reflects the position of the group. 15:39:35 .. Regarding the Process and if it is in there or not, Pierre read a section. One of the bullet points for 15:39:54 .. the Director to consider is if there are interoperable independent implementations. That plural 15:40:09 .. implies minimum 2. I'm not sure how to interpret this bullet point but that is there at least. 15:41:02 atai: it is one of many considerations 15:41:25 Nigel: I support Andreas's suggestion that we take this offline - by the way there has already been 15:41:32 .. offline discussion and we should continue that. 15:42:01 Cyril: I just want to report that I started using the IMSC-HRM open source implementation to 15:42:14 .. validate Netflix produced content. Some of them passed, some failed, so we're working on the details 15:42:27 .. with Pierre. In particular it's interesting because the same conversations are happening in different threads. 15:42:41 .. There is a LinkedIn thread from YellaUmbrella about the time gap between two subtitles. This is actuallyu 15:42:58 .. the issue we have with the IMSC-HRM. The failures being reported are because that gap is too small. 15:43:09 q+ 15:43:09 .. I just wanted to report that we are starting to use it, if that can be of help. 15:43:17 s/actuallyu/actually 15:43:20 ack atai 15:43:39 Andreas: One last point that we should not forget is that software that produces content that should 15:43:55 .. meet the requirements of the HRM should also be considered an independent implementation. Just 15:43:59 .. something from last time. 15:44:18 Nigel: Yes, if it is designed with meeting the HRM constraints as part of the functionality. 15:45:46 Topic: TPAC planning 15:46:01 .. Our next meeting will be at TPAC, on Thursday 15th, at the TPAC time, not the usual time. 15:46:54 -> https://www.w3.org/TR/saur/ synchronization requirements (SAUR) 15:47:21 Nigel: No agenda changes since last time, but there is an additional joint meeting, thanks to a reminder 15:47:39 .. from Janina, with APA WG who want to discuss SAUR. Proposal is 14:30-15:30 on Thursday of TPAC. 15:47:51 .. I'll confirm that if there are no objections? 15:48:01 No objections 15:48:07 Nigel: Hearing nothing, I will confirm. 15:48:18 .. Anything else anyone wants to raise for TPAC? 15:49:20 .. Gary, have we sent the team the details they need? 15:49:34 Gary: I think so, I've just updated the calendar entries. I didn't see a form, for example. 15:50:00 Nigel: Thank you, I feel like there was some 1st September requirement, need to check. 15:50:11 Cyril: Just to double check something with the group re DAPT at TPAC. 15:50:23 .. Last time we said that you and I and maybe others could meet on Tuesday to do an editing session 15:51:27 .. and try to close as many issues as possible. Obviously there won't be time for people to review on Thursday 15:51:42 .. changes on Tuesday. Does anyone have any issue with aiming for a FPWD as soon as possible after that? 15:51:58 .. My plan is to close as many issues as possible before the meeting and then get document review and 15:52:03 .. ask for consensus for FPWD. 15:52:12 Nigel: I'd support that. 15:53:47 .. I think if we're doing a big step change in the document, then rather than asking the group to review 15:54:35 .. a bunch of pull requests I think it would make sense for us to edit together a new editor's draft and 15:54:43 .. seek FPWD consensus on that. 15:55:12 .. I'm proposing a streamlined process to get to FPWD. 15:55:17 Cyril: No objection to that. 15:55:49 Nigel: I'm going to make a formal proposal. 15:55:59 Cyril: We will go through the regular consensus period to ask for FPWD, right? 15:56:02 Nigel: Yes 15:56:44 PROPOSAL: The Editors of DAPT can merge changes to the current ED prior to FPWD without waiting for the usual 2 week review. 15:57:00 Nigel: Any objections? 15:57:07 No objections 15:57:21 Nigel: Hearing none, I'll make it a resolution, and the 2 week decision review period will apply! 15:57:30 RESOLUTION: The Editors of DAPT can merge changes to the current ED prior to FPWD without waiting for the usual 2 week review. 15:57:45 Nigel: Any more on DAPT? 15:58:15 Topic: AOB - SDO Coordination meeting on accessibility settings and signalling 15:58:59 Nigel: On August 22nd, I attended a multi-SDO coordination meeting, partially organised by Andreas, 15:59:24 .. with Gary and Pierre also present, where the topic of user accessibility settings and signalling was 15:59:38 .. discussed. I explained the role of TTWG in defining document formats. 16:00:29 .. Those attending were CTA, DVB, HbbTV, EBU, ITU and W3C. 16:01:00 Andreas: In summary, there is ongoing work by different organisations with some overlap, and the 16:01:08 .. question is how it can be harmonised or coordinated. 16:01:41 Nigel: Just to fill in an obvious question/gap: this seems to be about users being able to capture their 16:01:55 .. accessibility preferences in a portable way that can be used by different applications and services. 16:02:15 Andreas: Exactly. 16:02:31 Gary: Should we bring in the APA? It sounds like what they focus on as well. 16:02:34 .. Maybe down the line. 16:03:06 Nigel: I have proposed a breakout session at TPAC about this, and architectures that can satisfy the needs of 16:03:22 .. users, platform providers and content providers. In my view this is really complicated! 16:05:24 atai has left #tt 16:13:59 -> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2022/SessionIdeas#Architecting_for_Privacy.2C_Media_Accessibility_and_Product_development:_the_video_element Breakout session proposed by Nigel 16:14:04 Topic: Meeting close 16:26:12 Nigel: We're slightly over time. Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting] 16:26:16 rrsagent, make minutes 16:26:16 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/01-tt-minutes.html nigel 16:38:47 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 16:38:52 zakim, end meeting 16:38:52 As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre, Hew, Atsushi 16:38:54 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 16:38:54 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/01-tt-minutes.html Zakim 16:38:57 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:39:01 Zakim has left #tt 16:44:24 rrsagent, excuse us 16:44:24 I see no action items