W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-secondscreen@w3.org > September 2017

Re: Agenda for Second Screen WG/CG F2F at TPAC

From: mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:06:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CALgg+HFvdTYX_uuhpXLAJkrXSFf2BgCp6Hgi2k-ArqKvGJzreg@mail.gmail.com>
To: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Cc: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, Mounir Lamouri <mlamouri@google.com>, Chris Needham <chris.needham@bbc.co.uk>
Francois/Anssi -

What is the timeline to request a charter extension?  Should we start the
process for consensus on this?

m.


On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:52 PM, mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:13 AM, François Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Le 19/09/2017 à 19:03, mark a. foltz a écrit :
>>
>>> Thank Anssi for setting this up.  I will take a pass at the agenda
>>> shortly.
>>>
>>> One operational issue: the SSWG is chartered through October 31,
>>> immediately before TPAC.
>>>
>>> That timeline seems too tight for Presentation API to go to REC; by
>>> 10/31 we would need a CfC to go to PR, then follow the PR process, which
>>> takes at least 4 weeks if I remember correctly.  Ideally, we (Chrome) would
>>> also appreciate extra time to address any issues found through
>>> implementation testing (to improve the implementation report).  Also we may
>>> decide on a set of features for the level 2 spec.
>>>
>>> For the Remote Playback API, we will need an additional window of time
>>> to move it forward and address remaining issues (including interop, <video>
>>> feature requirements, and soliciting a second implementation).
>>>
>>> We could ask for a one-month extension on the current charter (to cover
>>> TPAC and REC track work on Presentation API v1), then discuss at TPAC the
>>> time frame for a revised charter (once we know the amount of work that
>>> would be in scope). >
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Do we have any visibility about potential changes of scope that we might
>> want to put into the new charter?
>>
>
> If you look at the existing list of 'v2' features for the Presentation API
> as well as the 'future' item for the Remote Playback API, they fall under
> the scope of the current charter, so I think we're good there.
>
> For instance, could any part of the on-going discussions on the Open
>> Screen Protocol be ready for standardization by end of year and be worth
>> including in scope of the Second Screen WG?
>>
>
> Based on some basic criteria, I would say "no" right now.
>
> 1. Have we reached consensus on basic technical issues?  Discovery,
> transport and security consensus remains outstanding. Hopefully at TPAC we
> can resolve these.
> 2. Do we have some implementation experience to give us confidence in the
> solution?  Not yet - if Chrome continues to invest, and technical consensus
> is achieved, then we would be looking at 1H 2018 to begin an implementation
> effort.
> 3. Is Open Screen mature enough for wide review and scrutiny?  When #1 and
> #2 are achieved, then I think we will be ready.
>
> Also, my default position is that the IETF is the right place to move the
> Open Screen work to the standards track, which would not impact the
> chartering process for the WG.
>
> If we know already that this work should rather remain in incubation for
>> now, or should rather be standardized elsewhere, then we may want to ask
>> for a one-year charter extension directly with limited or no change in
>> scope to:
>>
>> 1. push the Presentation API to Recommendation, adjusting the test suite
>> and the implementation report as needed;
>> 2. start develop the Presentation API level 2 specification;
>> 3. complete the test suite of the Remote Playback API and solicit a
>> second implementation.
>>
>> If there are good chances that we'll want to adjust the scope of the
>> charter, then now is a good time to start the discussion, and we can indeed
>> ask for a short 1-2 month charter extension in the meantime.
>>
>
> There may be new work that comes out of TPAC and/or collaboration with the
> Web & TV IG;  it would likely start as incubation in the WICG or Webscreens
> CG though.
>
> Overall, I endorse Francois' plan suggested above.  If there is a need to
> discuss scope further (above and beyond email) I'm happy to dial into a
> teleconference prior to TPAC.
>
> m.
>
> Francois.
>>
>> m.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <
>>> anssi.kostiainen@intel.com <mailto:anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi Second Screen WG/CG,
>>>         Mark, Mounir, Chris,
>>>
>>>      > On 14 Sep 2017, at 16.49, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org
>>>     <mailto:fd@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>      >
>>>      > Hello Second Screen WG participants,
>>>      >
>>>      > Our next F2F will take place during TPAC in Burlingame,
>>>     California. Please remember to register for the meeting at:
>>>      > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2017/
>>>     <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2017/>
>>>      >
>>>      > Other events seem to be taking place around that area during the
>>>     same week, so note flights and hotels are filling up fast!
>>>
>>>     Now that you all have hopefully registered, it is a good time to
>>>     look at the F2F agenda.
>>>
>>>     I put up proposed F2F topics to the wiki to start the discussion:
>>>
>>>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/Second_Screen/Meetings/Nov_2017_F2F#Agenda
>>>     <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Second_Screen/Meetings/Nov_2017_F2F#Agenda>
>>>
>>>     (on mobile, click the topic to expand)
>>>
>>>     Mark - given the Presentation API has had only minor revisions
>>>     lately, I'd expect most of the F2F time spent on the Open Screen
>>>     Protocol topics. Feel free to suggest more concrete breakdown of
>>>     topics for the protocol-level discussions.
>>>
>>>     Mounir, Mark - any topics you'd like to cover for the Remote
>>>     Playback API in particular? My expectation is we're able to publish
>>>     the CR before TPAC and as such should discuss the CR feedback
>>>     received prior to TPAC. The current open issues do not seem to
>>>     require too much discussion beyond #41 that is pending
>>>     implementation experience.
>>>
>>>     Chris - does the proposed joint session with the Media and
>>>     Entertainment IG on Monday afternoon still work for your group? I'd
>>>     suggest we meet right after lunch, say 2-3pm on Monday. OK?
>>>
>>>     All - please let us know any topics you'd like to see discussed at
>>>     the F2F that may have been missed. If you haven't yet registered but
>>>     would like to attend, please do so by 6 October 2017. You can make
>>>     edits directly to the wiki or simply reply to this mail with your
>>>     suggestions.
>>>
>>>     Looking forward to another productive Second Screen F2F at TPAC 2017!
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>
>>>     -Anssi (Second Screen WG Chair)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2017 18:07:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:19:03 UTC