RE: [MSE] Homework re: issues in the context of upcoming FPWD

>A WG call for consensus is required to actually publish it; I believe Paul can help with the details there.

My plan was do a CfC within the Media task force and if that passes to do a CfC at the WG level.  I am quite willing to skip the first step if that is what others prefer and to simply do the CfC immediately at the WG level.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:09 PM
To: Aaron Colwell
Cc: Paul Cotton; Pierre-Anthony Lemieux; public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: Re: [MSE] Homework re: issues in the context of upcoming FPWD


W3C staff (e.g. Mike Smith or Robin Berjon) can help you figure out the details to prepare a Working Draft. FPWD should look the same as any other Working Draft. A WG call for consensus is required to actually publish it; I believe Paul can help with the details there.

REgards,
Maciej

On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com<mailto:acolwell@google.com>> wrote:


I agree. I don't believe Bug 19673 is critical to the FPWD and I support leaving it out in the interest of getting to FPWD as quickly as possible.

I don't really know what is involved in converting the MSE spec in to a FPWD. I realize we still have 3 outstanding bugs, but say I decided to punt them and publish FPWD today. What would I need to do to make that happen? I'm just trying to figure out what work remains for publishing a FPWD that isn't captured by a bug that blocks the Publish Media Source Extensions FPWD bug<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20253>.

Aaron

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com<mailto:mjs@apple.com>> wrote:

On Dec 12, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>> wrote:

>> I think issue #19673 [1] would benefit the most from being included in the FPWD, and exposed to a broader audience.
>
> Why would this bug "benefit the most"?  I am becoming quite concerned that we will never get a FPWD if we insist on getting everyone's "most important bug" solved in the FPWD.
>
> In my view it is time to move to a "date driven schedule" for both the MSE and EME FPWD's.  We should pick a date and agree that we will all work to get as many bugs resolved by that date.  Anything not done by that date will simply wait for a subsequent WD which could be as soon as we want after the FPWD.
I agree with Paul. FPWD doesn't have to be perfect or complete. It just has to be a reasonable starting point.

The W3C Process says:

"In order to make Working Drafts available to a wide audience early in their development, the requirements for publication of a Working Draft are limited to an agreement by a chartered Working Group to publish the technical report and satisfaction of the Team's Publication Rules[PUB31]. Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the Working Group may request publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements."

The upshot is that Working Groups should look to publish a First Public Working Draft early in development, even if it is incomplete and unstable. The two media extensions have arguably already waiting too long by this standard.

Regards,
Maciej