Re: Call for Consensus to publish WebVTT as a Candidate Recommendation

There is nothing wrong with "contributions"; however, if the expectation by
the contributor is that the contribution will merely be rubber stamped,
then that won't work.

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu., 5 Apr. 2018, 3:54 am Pierre-Anthony Lemieux, <pal@sandflow.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> > Because it’s such a joyful experience?
>>
>> Happy to work with you and Nigel (as chairs of the TTWG) to lower the
>> barriers to participation to the TTWG. Encouraging work in a parallel
>> group does not help achieve convergence and interoperability.
>>
>
> As long as there is no spec fork, it shouldn't make a difference where the
> work is done or where the contributions find from. We should take
> contributions from the CSS WG and other groups as well as the CG. The CG
> has most certainly not had any issues about collaborating on getting the
> spec to CR.
>
> I wouldn't want to create as problem where none exists.
>
> Kind regards,
> Silvia.
>
>
>> Best,
>>
>> -- Pierre
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:47 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Mar 30, 2018, at 14:27 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi David,
>> >>
>> >>> You’re presuming that substantive changes are coming from the CG
>> >>
>> >> As a member of the TTWG, I should not have to go through the commit
>> >> log to determine whether an FSA exists.
>> >
>> > Pierre, think for a moment. The question concerns changes proposed from
>> outside the WG, and the same rule applies to all WGs. The chairs are
>> supposed to work with the team to get an IPR commitment. It’s immaterial if
>> the proposer is a member of the CG or not.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As I understand it, an FSA was obtained from all WebVTT contributors
>> >> so far. Is this correct?
>> >
>> > Yes, an FSA was obtained before we made the first WD in the WG.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> That gets reviewed by both groups.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, everyone is encouraged to review W3C recommendations and
>> >> provide feedback. The TTWG however manages the WebVTT REC once
>> >> published. The CG does not.
>> >>
>> >>> That we keep mutually informed, and I try to keep in sync. That’s
>> what this documents.
>> >>
>> >> Going forward, I would expect folks that wish to contribute to WebVTT
>> >> to join the TTWG.
>> >
>> > Because it’s such a joyful experience?
>> >
>> > If people want changes to the Rec. track document, I would expect us to
>> handle it as we would any other proposal for change coming from inside the
>> WG, from a liaison, from another member of the consortium, or anywhere
>> else.  Do you refuse to consider proposals and points made by people
>> outside the TTWG for your documents?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> -- Pierre
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:01 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Mar 30, 2018, at 13:44 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Silvia,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I still believe this paragraph is correct since work on the
>> >>>>> specification is done by both groups.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This cannot be the case going forward, unless a Final Specification
>> >>>> Agreement [1] is secured from everyone in the CG every time a
>> >>>> modification is made there.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/final/
>> >>>
>> >>> You’re presuming that substantive changes are coming from the CG, and
>> if that happens, I’ll need to use ash-nazg or similar. But during the
>> recent periods, the traffic has been the other way.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> In fact, all changes made during CR will be fed back to the CG
>> >>>>> specification.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Well, it depends on the document license that is used. Which one?
>> >>>
>> >>> CG reports and W3C rec-track documents are both products of the W3C,
>> so between the two, no-one is licensing anything to anyone.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> And it's only fair to be inclusive about explaining
>> >>>>> where the work was done for this specification.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes, the original source of the work can be mentioned, but going
>> >>>> forward this is a TTWG specification.
>> >>>
>> >>> That gets reviewed by both groups.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> It's not like the CG is a non-W3C entity.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The CG and WG have different IP regimes and membership.
>> >>>
>> >>> That we keep mutually informed, and I try to keep in sync. That’s
>> what this documents.
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -- Pierre
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> >>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> Hi Pierre,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux
>> >>>>> <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Hi Silvia,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/
>> webvtt/blob/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/changes.html
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The document shows no changes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes, it's in preparation.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Note that in WebVTT we put the snapshots into an "archive"
>> directory rather than keeping additional branches open.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> No need to keep a branch open: a git tag is sufficient (ideally
>> >>>>>> accompanied by a github release)... but ok.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Interesting! I guess that works also. Particularly if you have many
>> >>>>> publication events.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> About that extra paragraph: it's not up to me to change it - it
>> was provided like that by Thierry.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> So... you do not object to removing the paragraph?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> As I said:
>> >>>>> I still believe this paragraph is correct since work on the
>> >>>>> specification is done by both groups. That this snapshot is being
>> >>>>> processed by the TTWG should not make a difference to this
>> statement,
>> >>>>> IMHO. In fact, all changes made during CR will be fed back to the CG
>> >>>>> specification. And it's only fair to be inclusive about explaining
>> >>>>> where the work was done for this specification. It's not like the CG
>> >>>>> is a non-W3C entity.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> This document is governed by the 1 March 2017 W3C Process
>> Document.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The process is out-of-date:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks, I wasn't aware. Again, I just cut and pasted from what
>> Thierry
>> >>>>> gave me. I'll make a new PR.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>> Silvia.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Best,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -- Pierre
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> >>>>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Hi Pierre,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> That link is here:
>> >>>>>>> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/
>> webvtt/blob/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/changes.html
>> >>>>>>> .
>> >>>>>>> Also the diff is here:
>> >>>>>>> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/
>> webvtt/blob/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/diff.html
>> >>>>>>> .
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> These will be correct when published to the official W3C TR site
>> >>>>>>> because they are relative links. The <base> URL was introduced by
>> >>>>>>> htmlpreview which is why they are not rendering directly in the
>> >>>>>>> subdirectory.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Note that in WebVTT we put the snapshots into an "archive"
>> directory
>> >>>>>>> rather than keeping additional branches open. That reduces
>> confusion
>> >>>>>>> in the GitHub repository between what is a branch with data for
>> PR and
>> >>>>>>> what is the actual committed content. I still believe it is
>> correct
>> >>>>>>> since work on the specification is done by both. That this
>> snapshot is
>> >>>>>>> being processed by the TTWG should not make a difference to this
>> >>>>>>> statement, IMHO.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>> >>>>>>> Silvia.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> About that extra paragraph: it's not up to me to change it - it
>> was
>> >>>>>>> provided like that by Thierry.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:52 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux
>> >>>>>>> <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Hi Silvia,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> This does not seem right:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/webvtt/gh-pages/
>> archives/2018-04-15/changes.html
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Also, can the following be removed since the specification is now
>> >>>>>>>> managed by TTWG:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> """
>> >>>>>>>> Work on this specification is being undertaken both in the Web
>> Media
>> >>>>>>>> Text Tracks Community Group as well as in the W3C Timed Text
>> Working
>> >>>>>>>> Group. The latter group works towards a W3C Recommendation for
>> >>>>>>>> reference purposes with interoperability requirements, while the
>> >>>>>>>> former is a Draft Community Group Report that continues to
>> evolve.
>> >>>>>>>> """
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> -- Pierre
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> >>>>>>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> David jumped the gun with his email a little - Thierry and I
>> first
>> >>>>>>>>> needed to land that pull request.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> You can find the proper link at
>> >>>>>>>>> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/
>> webvtt/blob/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/Overview.html
>> >>>>>>>>> .
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>> Silvia.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 3:43 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Thierry wrote the status of this document, not me.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I think he also has a better URL for it, but I can’t find it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 30, 2018, at 9:23 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <
>> pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi David et al.,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> This document is not hosted on the W3C github repo? Why not
>> simply
>> >>>>>>>>>>> create a CR branch at https://github.com/w3c/webvtt ?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, the following paragraph should be removed since this
>> >>>>>>>>>>> specification is managed by TTWG exclusively at this point --
>> the CG
>> >>>>>>>>>>> has no control over it.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> No formal control, indeed, but we are trying (and so far
>> succeeding) to avoid forks and differences, so I prefer to keep the
>> paragraph.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> """Work on this specification is being undertaken both in the
>> Web
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Media Text Tracks Community Group as well as in the W3C Timed
>> Text
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Working Group. The latter group works towards a W3C
>> Recommendation for
>> >>>>>>>>>>> reference purposes with interoperability requirements, while
>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> former is a Draft Community Group Report that continues to
>> evolve."""
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- Pierre
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:16 AM, David Singer <
>> singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [sending again as plain text in case the HTML format was
>> hiding a spurious link]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> following this week's call giving conceptual approval
>> pending the preparation of the CR document, and the preparation by Thierry
>> and Silvia of the CR draft at <https://htmlpreview.github.
>> io/?https://github.com/silviapfeiffer/webvtt-spec/blob/
>> f8da4f27205ed2c11b7dedbf46d91b363eaafe9b/archives/2018-04-
>> 15/Overview.html> is now ready for us to request transition to Candidate
>> Recommendation: I think that the obvious typo in “Diff from previous” has
>> been or will imminently be fixed. This email is a call for consensus to
>> make the transition based on this version of the document; barring any
>> objections within the WG's Decision Policy period of 10 working days as
>> defined in the Charter, I will ask for this transition request to be made.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (Thierry/Silvia, if there is a better link, let us know)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For transition request purposes, assuming no objections, I
>> will record this as a resolution in the minutes of the next call.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please review the document and if possible confirm that you
>> agree with this resolution; silence will be taken as acceptance, but an
>> explicit approval would be much appreciated.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you spot any problems please raise issues as normal on
>> the GitHub repository. We can make minor editorial fixes such as typo fixes
>> any time.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who contributed to the push to get to
>> this state over the last few months: this represents a lot of hard work.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> David
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> David Singer
>> >>>>>>>>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> David Singer
>> >>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> >>>
>> >
>> > David Singer
>> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> >
>>
>