- From: mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:06:21 -0700
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CALgg+HFvdTYX_uuhpXLAJkrXSFf2BgCp6Hgi2k-ArqKvGJzreg@mail.gmail.com>
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