W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2012

Re: media fragments (Re: Draft minutes from 2012-05-03 TAG telcon)

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 11:20:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4FA5454F.80708@arcanedomain.com>
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>

Please accept my apologies as TAG chair for any possible mishandling of 
this in terms of the logistics of scribing and minutes distribution. I 
understand that some "damage" has been done by having this in the public 
draft minutes. That said, we'll of course be glad to make any appropriate 
corrections or "redactions" to the final version of the minutes, if that 
would be helpful.

Since the quote in question is attributed to Larry, I suggest that you and 
he discuss privately whether any such changes will be helpful before the 
minutes are approved as final.

I will also take this as a reminder that we should be more careful with 
distribution of draft minutes that might be disclosing, whether accurately 
or not, discussions that participants considered to be private. Scribes: 
since you are responsible for e-mailing draft minutes for review, please 
keep this concern in mind, and check with involved parties before 
distributing any questionable transcripts.

Thank you.


On 5/5/2012 4:24 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>  From the recent minutes:
>>    masinter: do we need to push back on media fragments group?
>>    ... at the web conference, I talked to Thomas, and they were
>>    saying it was a mistake when the group was chartered
>>    ... we have a draft from a WG that the folks from the IETF
>>    thought was laughable
>>    ... there's a disconnect there
> I object against finding incomplete versions of private hallway conversations relayed in TAG meetings without permission or the courtesy of an invitation to the meeting.  I further object against having incomplete versions of private hallway conversations relayed in publicly visible draft minutes, without as much courtesy as an explicit CC.  If the TAG believes that it is entitled to the courtesy of having its draft minutes not being forwarded to public mailing lists elsewhere, then I would suggest that the TAG and its members afford a similar degree of courtesy to others they interact with.
> Absent that courtesy, frank and open conversations with TAG members become impossible.
> To put this snippet (and the discussion at the Web conference) in context, I recommend a look at the charter of the media fragments WG:
>> The mission of the Media Fragments Working Group, part of the Video in the Web Activity, is to address temporal and spatial media fragments in the Web using Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
> 	-- http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-fragments-wg.html
> In the conversation at WWW 2012, I took Larry's critique of media fragments to be against a W3C working group defining semantics for fragment identifiers.  I pointed out that that was the very purpose of this working group, and said that if people thought this basic approach was a mistake, then that would have been a point to discuss at chartering time, not at PR time.
> There's a separate question what the exact coordination needs are at this point, how they are best dealt with, and what communication needs to go back to the IETF.   As W3C liaison to the IETF, I re-iterate my request that TAG members put coordination issues on the agenda of W3C/IETF liaison meetings, where these belong.  Interfering in the work of the liaisons is not helpful.
> Further, I will note that the overall relationship between W3C and IETF is not helped by the liberal use of terms like "laughable" in characterizing widely-implemented technical work or its reception.
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 15:21:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:15 UTC