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