RE: [MSE] Homework re: issues in the context of upcoming FPWD

>A WG call for consensus is required to actually publish it; I believe Paul can help with the details there.

My plan was do a CfC within the Media task force and if that passes to do a CfC at the WG level.  I am quite willing to skip the first step if that is what others prefer and to simply do the CfC immediately at the WG level.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:09 PM
To: Aaron Colwell
Cc: Paul Cotton; Pierre-Anthony Lemieux; public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: Re: [MSE] Homework re: issues in the context of upcoming FPWD


W3C staff (e.g. Mike Smith or Robin Berjon) can help you figure out the details to prepare a Working Draft. FPWD should look the same as any other Working Draft. A WG call for consensus is required to actually publish it; I believe Paul can help with the details there.

REgards,
Maciej

On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com<mailto:acolwell@google.com>> wrote:


I agree. I don't believe Bug 19673 is critical to the FPWD and I support leaving it out in the interest of getting to FPWD as quickly as possible.

I don't really know what is involved in converting the MSE spec in to a FPWD. I realize we still have 3 outstanding bugs, but say I decided to punt them and publish FPWD today. What would I need to do to make that happen? I'm just trying to figure out what work remains for publishing a FPWD that isn't captured by a bug that blocks the Publish Media Source Extensions FPWD bug<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20253>.

Aaron

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com<mailto:mjs@apple.com>> wrote:

On Dec 12, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>> wrote:

>> I think issue #19673 [1] would benefit the most from being included in the FPWD, and exposed to a broader audience.
>
> Why would this bug "benefit the most"?  I am becoming quite concerned that we will never get a FPWD if we insist on getting everyone's "most important bug" solved in the FPWD.
>
> In my view it is time to move to a "date driven schedule" for both the MSE and EME FPWD's.  We should pick a date and agree that we will all work to get as many bugs resolved by that date.  Anything not done by that date will simply wait for a subsequent WD which could be as soon as we want after the FPWD.
I agree with Paul. FPWD doesn't have to be perfect or complete. It just has to be a reasonable starting point.

The W3C Process says:

"In order to make Working Drafts available to a wide audience early in their development, the requirements for publication of a Working Draft are limited to an agreement by a chartered Working Group to publish the technical report and satisfaction of the Team's Publication Rules[PUB31]. Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the Working Group may request publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements."

The upshot is that Working Groups should look to publish a First Public Working Draft early in development, even if it is incomplete and unstable. The two media extensions have arguably already waiting too long by this standard.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 06:57:14 UTC