W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Issue-152 (multitrack-media-resources): Call for Consensus

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:52:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4DB19633.9070007@intertwingly.net>
CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Summary: this is a longish email which describes how we will proceed in 
the event that we do NOT receive clear objections and/or a modified 
Change Proposal TODAY as requested[1].

On 04/22/2011 03:18 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> The undersigned members of the media subgroup of the accessibility
> task force have agreed to withdraw proposals 1-3 in favor of proposal
> 4 with the following additions to be made to the proposal:

There are two potential problems that I don't think apply here, but I 
simply want to enumerate them so that (a) people can object, and (b) to 
make it clear that not addressing these was not an unintentional oversight.

(1) Proposal 4 does not match what currently is in Ian's draft.  In 
particular, Ian has made subsequent changes to his draft based on the 
discussions and has not updated his proposal.  Many of these changes are 
directly relevant to issue 152.  I will state that that is entirely OK - 
as long as absolutely nobody in the Working Group objects.

(2) Since we do not ask for people to identify which proposals they 
support, a willingness by some people who were originally involved in 
drafting the the proposal does not mean that the proposal is without 
supporters.  I don't believe that this is likely in this case as 
everybody who is interested in crafting a solution to this issue appears 
to have been actively involved, and the intent to withdraw these 
proposals has been publicized in advance, and no objections have been 
received to date.

So, before moving on... if anybody objects to (1) or (2) above, now 
would be the time to do so.

Related to both #1 and #2 above, Ian has expressed a desire to withdraw 
his proposal if all other proposals are withdrawn[2].

First: this proposal, as written, is no longer relevant.  Silvia 
enumerated 5 additions that have yet to be incorporated and nothing in 
that proposal from over a month ago is helpful in evaluating objections 
to doing so.

And second: as described above, Ian withdrawing his proposal does not 
mean that it does not have supporters.  In fact, it appears that 
everything in that proposal (as it has subsequently evolved in SVN if 
not in the proposal itself) has consensus.  The only thing over which 
there are known differences at this point are five proposed additions 
which have not yet been incorporated.  Following are heavily elided 
excerpts from the remainder of Sylvia's email:

> (1)
> Therefore, we request addition of a getKind(in unsigned long index)
> function to the TrackList object, or something of equivalent
> functionality.
>
> (2)
> Therefore, we request addition of a loop IDL attribute on the
> MediaController object.
>
> (3)
> Therefore, we request addition of a autoplay IDL attribute on the
> MediaController object.
>
> (4)
> Therefore, we request addition of a readyState IDL attribute on the
> MediaController object.
>
> (5) onended event:
> Therefore, we request addition of a onended event to the MediaController object.

At the present time, it is these five additions that we need to 
evaluate, not the original Change Proposals.  Typically, when people 
propose specific additions, we give people time to evaluate those 
additions and to propose alternatives.  It is not clear to me that 
adequate time has been allowed for this to occur.

Put another way, if these additions were made and were to be met with 
objections by members of the working group, the chairs would likely ask 
that they be reverted until consensus has been found.

  - - -

Based on all of the the above, it is my (personal, non-binding) 
recommendation that we simply allow Ian to withdraw his proposal; we ask 
Ian to update the W3C draft, preferably today, to include the API 
changes that he has been shepherding; and ask that bug reports be opened 
on these additions (Sylvia would you be willing to do this?).

That being said, we previously gave until today for people to produce 
Alternate or Counter Proposals, and we plan to keep to that.  If we do 
not receive such today, we will treat all proposals as withdrawn and 
close issue 152 without prejudice as requested.  If we do receive a 
proposal, and don't hear otherwise, then we will presume that Ian's 
offer to withdraw his proposal as being rescinded, and we will proceed 
to evaluate the two proposals.  If those who prefer to not include these 
additions at this time wish to request a brief period of time (as in a 
few days) to update their proposal, such a request will likely be granted.

The operational affect of opening bugs and closing the issue without 
prejudice is that these additions can still make last call if resolved 
without objection.  And the issue itself can be reopened at any time -- 
albeit as a last call issue -- simply by providing a Change Proposal.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0759.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0224.html
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 14:53:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC