Re: Issue-152 (multitrack-media-resources): Call for Consensus

All -

  I personally agree with Sam's recommendation that we ask Ian to withdraw his proposal and update the W3C draft to include the current MediaController proposal. The few issues we don't all agree on are relatively minor and can be resolved through the normal bug resolution process.

  I do not think a new Change Proposal is necessary, and I will not contribute to one.

  We have *all* made great progress on this in the last month, and it is clear that everyone involved sincerely wants to find the best solution for this issue. I think Sam has outlined the best path forward.

eric

On Apr 22, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Summary: this is a longish email which describes how we will proceed in the event that we do NOT receive clear objections and/or a modified Change Proposal TODAY as requested[1].
> 
> On 04/22/2011 03:18 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> 
>> The undersigned members of the media subgroup of the accessibility
>> task force have agreed to withdraw proposals 1-3 in favor of proposal
>> 4 with the following additions to be made to the proposal:
> 
> There are two potential problems that I don't think apply here, but I simply want to enumerate them so that (a) people can object, and (b) to make it clear that not addressing these was not an unintentional oversight.
> 
> (1) Proposal 4 does not match what currently is in Ian's draft.  In particular, Ian has made subsequent changes to his draft based on the discussions and has not updated his proposal.  Many of these changes are directly relevant to issue 152.  I will state that that is entirely OK - as long as absolutely nobody in the Working Group objects.
> 
> (2) Since we do not ask for people to identify which proposals they support, a willingness by some people who were originally involved in drafting the the proposal does not mean that the proposal is without supporters.  I don't believe that this is likely in this case as everybody who is interested in crafting a solution to this issue appears to have been actively involved, and the intent to withdraw these proposals has been publicized in advance, and no objections have been received to date.
> 
> So, before moving on... if anybody objects to (1) or (2) above, now would be the time to do so.
> 
> Related to both #1 and #2 above, Ian has expressed a desire to withdraw his proposal if all other proposals are withdrawn[2].
> 
> First: this proposal, as written, is no longer relevant.  Silvia enumerated 5 additions that have yet to be incorporated and nothing in that proposal from over a month ago is helpful in evaluating objections to doing so.
> 
> And second: as described above, Ian withdrawing his proposal does not mean that it does not have supporters.  In fact, it appears that everything in that proposal (as it has subsequently evolved in SVN if not in the proposal itself) has consensus.  The only thing over which there are known differences at this point are five proposed additions which have not yet been incorporated.  Following are heavily elided excerpts from the remainder of Sylvia's email:
> 
>> (1)
>> Therefore, we request addition of a getKind(in unsigned long index)
>> function to the TrackList object, or something of equivalent
>> functionality.
>> 
>> (2)
>> Therefore, we request addition of a loop IDL attribute on the
>> MediaController object.
>> 
>> (3)
>> Therefore, we request addition of a autoplay IDL attribute on the
>> MediaController object.
>> 
>> (4)
>> Therefore, we request addition of a readyState IDL attribute on the
>> MediaController object.
>> 
>> (5) onended event:
>> Therefore, we request addition of a onended event to the MediaController object.
> 
> At the present time, it is these five additions that we need to evaluate, not the original Change Proposals.  Typically, when people propose specific additions, we give people time to evaluate those additions and to propose alternatives.  It is not clear to me that adequate time has been allowed for this to occur.
> 
> Put another way, if these additions were made and were to be met with objections by members of the working group, the chairs would likely ask that they be reverted until consensus has been found.
> 
> - - -
> 
> Based on all of the the above, it is my (personal, non-binding) recommendation that we simply allow Ian to withdraw his proposal; we ask Ian to update the W3C draft, preferably today, to include the API changes that he has been shepherding; and ask that bug reports be opened on these additions (Sylvia would you be willing to do this?).
> 
> That being said, we previously gave until today for people to produce Alternate or Counter Proposals, and we plan to keep to that.  If we do not receive such today, we will treat all proposals as withdrawn and close issue 152 without prejudice as requested.  If we do receive a proposal, and don't hear otherwise, then we will presume that Ian's offer to withdraw his proposal as being rescinded, and we will proceed to evaluate the two proposals.  If those who prefer to not include these additions at this time wish to request a brief period of time (as in a few days) to update their proposal, such a request will likely be granted.
> 
> The operational affect of opening bugs and closing the issue without prejudice is that these additions can still make last call if resolved without objection.  And the issue itself can be reopened at any time -- albeit as a last call issue -- simply by providing a Change Proposal.
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0759.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0224.html
>

Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 15:15:38 UTC