Re: edited TTWG draft charter, VTT?

On 26/03/2018, 21:03, "David Singer" <singer@mac.com> wrote:

>
>
>> On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:48 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>> Hi Silvia,
>>
>>> If we fail at that, we send a clear signal that this is a group that
>>>has no interest in webvtt, but only in TTML.
>>
>> This group includes you, David S. and others that have expressed
>> interest in WebVTT.
>>
>> Per David S., it sounds like "we just need to close the remaining bugs
>> (if any) and I need to finish the transition request."
>>
>> What about simply doing this?
>
>Yes, let¡¯s do that.  We got Nigel¡¯s feedback on those recently, and
>Silvia and Nigel are diligently converging. I don¡¯t see any a priori
>reason why we shouldn¡¯t be able to approve the CR transition and move
>ahead.

For the transition request, you need to be able to point to the WG's
decision to request transition. PlH recently pointed out to me very firmly
that it must be a "final" decision, for which there is no possibility of
reversal. If we have a decision you can already point to, then you should
be able to use that. If you need a new resolution to request transition,
then I'm afraid we are formally out of time: the TTWG Charter specifies a
decision policy that means that in principle a resolution might be subject
to an objection up to 10 days after being made initially. Until that 10
days is up, assuming PlH sticks to the same rule, he won't make the
transition request. I don't need to point out that 10 days after now is
already beyond the end of the Charter period.

I think Thierry also made a statement earlier that he doesn't think the
Wide Review is complete. I'm not sure about that, but it is indeed another
requirement for transition.

Nigel

>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -- Pierre
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The level of support for webvtt in this group is a problem of the W3C
>>> management who suggested this would be the right environment to take
>>>webvtt
>>> through to REC. If we fail at that, we send a clear signal that this
>>>is a
>>> group that has no interest in webvtt, but only in TTML. That's fine,
>>>but
>>> don't call this the group that has an interest in all things video
>>> accessibility then.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Silvia.
>>>
>>> On Tue., 27 Mar. 2018, 6:20 am David Ronca, <dronca@netflix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don¡¯t think it very constructive to get into a comparison argument
>>>>>of
>>>>> the two specifications.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing I am comparing is the level of support.  TTML2/IMSC2
>>>>has
>>>> broad industry support with many organizations willing to invest time
>>>>and
>>>> money to move the work forward.  WebVTT does not. You should not
>>>>expect
>>>> those who are not committed to WebVTT to carry the water.  Find one
>>>>company
>>>> willing to invest in the project at a level that matters, and your
>>>>problem
>>>> is solved.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:09 PM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don¡¯t think it very constructive to get into a comparison argument
>>>>>of
>>>>> the two specifications. Honestly, they both have problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> The investment in the many implementations of VTT, including in
>>>>>browsers,
>>>>> happened years ago, it¡¯s true. There are open-source, browser-based,
>>>>> standalone, polyfill and translation implementations. In fact, one
>>>>>problem
>>>>> is that people don¡¯t see a need to be involved in formal processes
>>>>>after the
>>>>> time when it was all implemented; they¡¯ve implemented and moved on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we drop this ¡°your spec. is X¡± line of discussion? I don¡¯t see it
>>>>> yielding any useful insights.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:04 , David Ronca <dronca@netflix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thats what Im talking about: the time spent in this group on moving
>>>>>>> WebVTT to CR has been negligible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are all doing the W3C work as representatives of our
>>>>>> companies/organizations, and you should not be surprised that the
>>>>>>collective
>>>>>> priorities of the participanting individuals and organizations is
>>>>>>where the
>>>>>> time gets spent.  What should concern you is that there are no
>>>>>> companies/organizations or even individuals that believe that
>>>>>>WebVTT is
>>>>>> important enough to invest time or money in the effort, nor to even
>>>>>>join the
>>>>>> weekly calls.  How can WebVTT move forward with no one willing to
>>>>>>do the
>>>>>> heavy lifting, and why should it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has more implementations and complete features than the very
>>>>>>> first time TTML went to CR
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What happened 10 years ago is not relevant.  TTML2 and IMSC2 will
>>>>>>have
>>>>>> multiple independent implementations of every feature.  Included in
>>>>>>this is
>>>>>> the open source TTT rendering project.  This is years of collective
>>>>>>effort
>>>>>> and many millions of dollars invested by many organizations to see
>>>>>>this
>>>>>> through.  Again going to my previous comments.  The WebVTT problem
>>>>>>is that
>>>>>> there are no companies/organizations willing to make a similar
>>>>>>investment in
>>>>>> WebVTT to complete the project.  It is not unreasonable, therefore,
>>>>>>to
>>>>>> conclude that the collective industry has decided that WebVTT is no
>>>>>>longer
>>>>>> relevant, and moved on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>>>>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Pierre,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thats what Im talking about: the time spent in this group on moving
>>>>>> WebVTT to CR has been negligible. All the effort has been done by
>>>>>> others outside the group. This group was tasked with a transition it
>>>>>> basically has no interest in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And about exit criteria: this is the first CR of WebVTT. It has more
>>>>>> implementations and complete features than the very first time TTML
>>>>>> went to CR - there's no way you can compare the status of the two
>>>>>> specifications at first CR and not see this difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not angry about this - it is what it is. I'd just like the
>>>>>> decision to be made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>>>> Silvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:26 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux
>>>>>> <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Silvia,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No other specification in the history of W3C has had to jump
>>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>> this many hoops to get to CR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as I know, WebVTT has been held to the same criteria for CR
>>>>>>> transition as IMSC (and TTML2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For better or for worse, the group has collectively spent multiple
>>>>>>> hundreds of man-hours closing
>>>>>>> issues leading up to the TTML2 CR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Pierre
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>>>>>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If there is a decision this group should take, it's to move webvtt
>>>>>>>> to CR. I
>>>>>>>> challenge you to get this done rather than throw another process
>>>>>>>> roadblock
>>>>>>>> at webvtt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's ready and has been for a long time. No other specification in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> history of W3C has had to jump through this many hoops to get to
>>>>>>>>CR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All other groups of the W3C have deemed it ready for months of not
>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do everyone a favour and just decide to move it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>> Silvia.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue., 27 Mar. 2018, 3:16 am Nigel Megitt,
>>>>>>>> <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not so much an opinion as a restatement - at this point we seem
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>> be in
>>>>>>>>> the realm of process. We made the following resolution at TPAC
>>>>>>>>>2016
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> Lisbon [1] as proposed by David Singer:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RESOLUTION: If we do not move WebVTT to CR in this Charter
>>>>>>>>>>period
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>> we will not include it in any new Charter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-tt-minutes.html#resolution01

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there's another way to meet the needs of the folk who want to
>>>>>>>>> progress
>>>>>>>>> VTT, then one way to satisfy that resolution is to close this
>>>>>>>>>line
>>>>>>>>> of work
>>>>>>>>> in TTWG and remove it from the draft new Charter; I think the
>>>>>>>>> Process
>>>>>>>>> requires publication as a WG Note in this event. I assume that
>>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>> not preclude taking it up again in another WG or other forum.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't actually see any other ways to satisfy the resolution -
>>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> any?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise we would need to make a new different decision very
>>>>>>>>> quickly (and
>>>>>>>>> our Decision Policy review period for any decision made now
>>>>>>>>>expires
>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>> the end of the current Charter, so time is not in favour); before
>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>> that I would ideally like to see some evidence that something has
>>>>>>>>> changed
>>>>>>>>> to warrant us revisiting it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For tracking purposes, I raised
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/issues/21 on Thursday
>>>>>>>>> 22nd
>>>>>>>>> March.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nigel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 23/03/2018, 17:21, "David Singer" <singer@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I©öm in debate with Silvia over the progression of VTT.  Do
>>>>>>>>>>others
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> opinions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With WhatWG on a firmer footing, much of the original motivation
>>>>>>>>>> to do a
>>>>>>>>>> Rec. has evaporated, and at this point looks like a lot of busy
>>>>>>>>>> work to
>>>>>>>>>> little reward. Are there people who see it differently?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 23, 2018, at 3:16 , Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have edited the TTWG draft charter with the changes agreed
>>>>>>>>>>> during our
>>>>>>>>>>> TTWG telecon.
>>>>>>>>>>> Please review the draft charter
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/Draft-2018-TTWG-Charter

>>>>>>>>>>>.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Deadline is Monday midnight US coast. I will send the charter
>>>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>>> tuesday to W3M for approval, and will request a charter
>>>>>>>>>>> extension.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thierry
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David Singer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> singer@mac.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David Singer
>>>>>
>>>>> singer@mac.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>David Singer
>
>singer@mac.com
>



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2018 10:13:21 UTC