- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 08:23:57 +0000
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- CC: Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
I agree, this is a non-issue, and I think there is no problem with Pierre's pull request. One more data point to back up the point that this is a non-problem: I've been a member of the CG for years, and in practice there has been vanishingly little actual discussion on the CG's reflector. There may be a community of people communicating about WebVTT, but they haven't done it actively in the CG as far as I can see for a long time. Since the GitHub repo for the spec is owned by the WG now, and some non-WG-members _have_ raised issues directly on the repo, I think we're in a good state to receive input from CG members and anyone else without having to make potentially misleading statements in the CR about "where the work happens". On 05/04/2018, 09:12, "singer@apple.com on behalf of David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote: >OK, letıs try again. > >Any Contributions from outside the WG need consideration of how to handle >the IPR question; the only material consideration is whether the >organization is a member of the WG. Itıs immaterial whether they are a >member of the CG, the church of the flying spaghetti monster, or anything >else. > >Having a CG is the normal model for the W3C for where exploration and >incubation of new ideas (if any) happen. I donıt see any reason to buck >the trend. > >The CG also provides a broader community review for the work. > >Currently we have managed to have a single specification with no >technical divergence, and so I think this is a storm in a teacup (or >spaghetti bowl). There isnıt a problem here, and there are no signs of >one developing. > >> On Apr 5, 2018, at 5:14 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> >>wrote: >> >> Hi Silvia, >> >>> 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. >> >> There are a number of differences: >> >> - the IPR commitments are different within a CG and a WG -- just like >> member submissions, CG contributions are more complicated to accept >> than WG member contributions >> >> - there is no formal process within a CG, e.g. to deal with objections >> >> - having a CG requires folks like myself to participate in two groups >> instead of one >> >> - reports published by CGs cannot be referenced by international >> standards -- in no small part, because CGs are not due process groups >> >> The WebVTT community should be encouraged to join TTWG, if they have >> not already done so. >> >> Best, >> >> -- Pierre >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:59 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 itıs 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, >>>>>> >>>>>>> Youıre 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. Itıs >>>>>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. Thatıs >>>>>>>what >>>>>>> this documents. >>>>>> >>>>>> Going forward, I would expect folks that wish to contribute to >>>>>>WebVTT >>>>>> to join the TTWG. >>>>> >>>>> Because itıs 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/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Youıre presuming that substantive changes are coming from the CG, >>>>>>>and >>>>>>> if that happens, Iıll 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. Thatıs >>>>>>>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/blo >>>>>>>>>>>b/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/blo >>>>>>>>>>>b/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/changes.html >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> Also the diff is here: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/blo >>>>>>>>>>>b/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/b >>>>>>>>>>>>>lob/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 canıt 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/silviapf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>eiffer/webvtt-spec/blob/f8da4f27205ed2c11b7dedbf46d91b363ea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>afe9b/archives/2018-04-15/Overview.html> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is now ready for us to request transition to Candidate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Recommendation: I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that the obvious typo in ³Diff from previous² 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. >>>>> > >David Singer >Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. > >
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2018 08:24:41 UTC