W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2012

Draft minutes 28 February 2012

From: Josh Soref <jsoref@rim.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:54:16 +0000
To: Media Capture <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <957F1ECDA90E004B8DBDE23CFC94E3A332140B53@XMB103ECNC.rim.net>
Attached are Draft minutes from today's teleconference, 28 February 2012, for approval at the next meeting.

Action item to the chairs: we're supposed to approve the previous meeting's minutes at the current meeting! -- please add this to the agenda -- for next meeting you can approve both meetings' minutes :).

Speaking of next meeting. If Anant (@MWC ; not present) finishes his previous task, we can have a meeting in about two weeks. Otherwise, it'll have to be after the IETF meeting. Tentatively that meeting should be after US Tax Day -- 16 April 2012 - action to chairs to create a doodle to pick a date and then to announce the date.

Please do review the minutes, I'm unfamiliar w/ many of the speakers and could easily have misattributed someone (tim/derf specifically). The raw minutes have a number of xx?: speakers [XX3     XX4     XX5].

Adambe: you're the only person for whom I've definitively lost content, I'm sorry, please feel free to reply and I can amend the minutes.

For convenience, and to try to elicit corrections, I've included excerpts from the places where I know I've lost content:

> burn: that's correct
> ... because I don't think bandwidth relates to aspect ratio
> ... I think a more interesting thing is between 2 and 3
> adambe: XX2

> burn: and the ones that are higher priority matter more
> ... we should say that the algorithm processes these in priority order
> XX3: you're going to run into the problem of a conflict between a priority order optional constraint
> ... and a mandatory constraint
> fluffy: I think you want to do mandatory constraints first
> XX4: I think fluffy 's suggestion makes more sense than burn 's

> adambe: [...]
> burn: I wanted to do clarifying questions first
> XX5: we can design the algorithm down the road

Would speakers XX3, XX4, and XX5 please identify themselves? :)

Josh Soref

For posterity, list-users.pl has the following to say about our meeting:

Adam_Bergkvist  Dan_Burnett     derf    fluffy  Frederick_Hirsch        Harald_Alvestrand       Josh_Soref      nstratford
stefanh Tim_Panton      Travis_MSFT

adambe  burn    derf    fluffy  hta     Josh_Soref      stefanh tim
Travis_MSFT     XX3     XX4     XX5


Could not identify:
burn    XX3     XX4     XX5

Not definitively identified as speaking:
Dan_Burnett     Frederick_Hirsch        nstratford

Of them, burn=Dan_Burnett; derf=Tim_Terriberry, fluffy=Cullen_Jennings.
Afaik, Frederick_Hirsch and nstratford were silent.
-- I'm tempted to teach list-users how to recognize dan, he isn't technically unguessable, it just isn't a common case based on the meetings I've analyzed.

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 21:54:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:08 UTC