RE: Working Group draft specification

Hi,

I implemented the change. The new GitHub repository that the Working Group should use from now is:
https://github.com/w3c/tvcontrol-api/

The latest editor's draft of the specification, which I updated to use the usual "Editor's draft" stylesheet is visible at:
https://w3c.github.io/tvcontrol-api/

The former repository and spec are still around but have a prominent warning about the transition to the Working Group:
https://github.com/w3c/tvapi/
https://w3c.github.io/tvapi/spec/

Thanks,
Francois.


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Chris Needham [mailto:chris.needham@bbc.co.uk]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks everyone for your comments.
> 
> If there are no further suggestions, I suggest we go ahead as described by
> Francois, and use the name that Alexander has proposed.
> 
> I think at this stage all the current work is in scope for the WG, although we
> can keep the option open to work on other topics in the CG if the need
> arises.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Chris (WG Chair)
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Bob Campbell [BobCampbell@eurofins.com]
> Sent: 10 May 2016 12:54
> To: Futasz, Alexander; Francois Daoust; 'Igarashi, Tatsuya'; Chris Needham;
> public-tvapi@w3.org; public-tvcontrol@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Working Group draft specification
> 
> Hi all
> 
> +1 that having a fork of the specification and concurrent versions would be
> very unsatisfactory, and confusing. Not just for those working on the
> specification and those referencing it, but for anyone were they to try and
> implement or test it.
> 
> Thanks
> Dr Bob Campbell
> CTO
> Eurofins Digital Testing, UK and Hong Kong
> Tel: +44 (0)1179 896 100 | Castlemead, Lower Castle Street, Bristol, BS1 3AG,
> United Kingdom | http://www.eurofins-digitaltesting.com/
> 
> Please note as Digital TV Labs is now part of the Eurofins group,  my new
> email address is BobCampbell@eurofins.com, please update your records
> accordingly.
> 
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material.. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities
> other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error,
> please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email
> transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free as information
> could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete.
> The sender therefore is in no way liable for any errors or omissions in the
> content of this message which may arise as a result of email transmission. If
> verification is required, please request a hard copy. We take reasonable
> precautions  to ensure our emails are free from viruses. You need, however,
> to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses, as we can
> take no responsibility for any computer viruses, which might be transferred
> by way of this email. We may monitor all email communication through our
> networks. If you contact us by email, we may store your name and address
> to facilitate communication, Eurofins Digital Product Testing UK Limited, a
> company registered in England and Wales, (Registration Number 05556060),
> whose registered office is at I54 business Park Valiant Way, Wolverhampton,
> WV9 5GB.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Futasz, Alexander [mailto:alexander.futasz@fokus.fraunhofer.de]
> Sent: 10 May 2016 12:46
> To: Francois Daoust; 'Igarashi, Tatsuya'; 'Chris Needham'; public-
> tvapi@w3.org; public-tvcontrol@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Working Group draft specification
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I agree as well and second Francois' proposal. Maybe use "w3c/tvcontrol-api"
> as new repository name. It would make it clear that it's an API and help to
> discover it. E.g. when you enter "api" into the filter input box on w3c GitHub,
> it would show up with all the other APIs.
> 
> On the call Kaz convinced me that using a single tracker makes more sense
> and I agree with Chris that the GitHub issue tracker makes it easier to keep
> everything close together.
> 
> Best regards
> Alex
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> Sent: Montag, 9. Mai 2016 15:37
> To: 'Igarashi, Tatsuya' <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com>; 'Chris Needham'
> <chris.needham@bbc.co.uk>; public-tvapi@w3.org; public-tvcontrol@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Working Group draft specification
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I agree with Igarashi-san that, from an IPR policy perspective, we cannot (at
> least we should not) let both the CG and WG work on the same version of
> the specification. Question is: does anyone in the CG plan to continue CG
> work on the TV Control API specification itself?
> 
> My understanding is that the CG might want to discuss additional features
> that are not in scope of the Working Group. These additional features can
> probably be described in dedicated extension specifications, which would
> have the benefit of leaving the WG as the sole owner of the TV Control API
> specification.
> 
> Personally, I think having two forks of the spec being worked upon by two
> closely related groups is confusing. It also calls for divergences to appear.. At
> best, it makes things more complex than they need to be (e.g. because of
> the need to keep the two forks in sync).
> 
> Looking at a similar example, when the Second Screen CG transitioned to a
> WG, the GitHub repository of the CG was transitioned to the WG, and the
> original CG repository now features a "We've moved" message, with a copy
> of the spec at the time when the transition occurred:
> https://github.com/webscreens/presentation-api
> 
> The Second Screen CG was initially planning to work on extensions as well
> (this did not happen, but that was the idea, at least).
> 
> I like this approach and suggest to do the same here, meaning:
> 1. Transition the "w3c/tvapi" repository to a "w3c/tvcontrol" repository,
> under the control of the WG. Transitioning will preserve the history, which
> seems valuable.
> 2. Re-create a "w3c/tvapi" repository, that will remain under the control of
> the CG and that will contain a snapshot of the current specification and a
> friendly message that redirects interested users to the "w3c/tvcontrol"
> repository.
> 
> Thanks,
> Francois.
> 
> 
> > From : Igarashi, Tatsuya [mailto:Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com]
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I suggest to use separate ones, especially, from IPR policy
> > perspective. The TV Control API CG and TV Control WG should
> > collaborate not to go in separate ways, but the spec development based
> > on the WG charter should be separated from that of CG.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > -***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***--***---***---***-
> > Tatsuya Igarashi (Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com) Innovative Technology
> > Development Div, System R&D Group Sony Corporation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Needham [mailto:chris.needham@bbc.co.uk]
> > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 7:28 PM
> > To: public-tvapi@w3.org; public-tvcontrol@w3.org
> > Subject: Working Group draft specification
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > One of the discussion topics on the Tuesday's conference call was the
> > relationship between the TV Control API Community Group and the TV
> > Control Working Group, and in particular the specification produced by
> > the CG.
> >
> > The WG plans to progress the TV Control API on the W3C Recommendation
> > Track, and the charter [2] says that the initial version of the
> > document will be copied from the CG's Final Report [1].
> >
> > The specification is in GitHub at [3], so I would like to ask the CG
> > participants if the WG should continue development of the
> > specification in the existing repository, or if it should start a new
> > repository? The new repository could be a fork of the existing one.
> >
> > I also mentioned the possibility of using the GitHub issue tracker to
> > keep track of issues and changes to the specification. My own view is
> > that GitHub will help by keeping the discussion about each specific
> > topic together. On the call, some people said they would prefer just
> > to use one tracking system. The CG currently uses W3C's issue tracker
> > [4]. A similar question arises: should the WG use the same issue
> > tracker as the CG, or should we use separate ones?
> >
> > I expect the answers to these questions may depend on the nature of
> > the work the CG plans to do: whether all current activities transition
> > into the WG, or whether the CG will continue to work separately on
> > specific topics, such as overlap with the Automotive BG/WG.
> >
> > I look forward to hearing your thoughts,
> >
> > Chris (WG Chair)
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/tvapi/Overview.html
> > [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/03/tvcontrol.html
> > [3] https://github.com/w3c/tvapi
> > [4] https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/
> >

Received on Monday, 30 May 2016 14:45:24 UTC