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

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

From: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 22:11:44 +0200
To: "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>
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: <868dfafd-b323-6aa0-e7ae-75573dd5f69c@w3.org>
Mark, Anssi,

Le 26/09/2017 à 20:06, mark a. foltz a écrit :
> Francois/Anssi -
> 
> What is the timeline to request a charter extension?  Should we start 
> the process for consensus on this?

Definitely. We're late already (my bad).

A short charter extension (2-3 months) would take about 2 weeks to get.
Anything longer requires sending the W3C membership a call for review, 
which takes at least 4 weeks + ~3 weeks to get W3C Management pre- and 
post-approval.

The plan I outlined for a 12 month extension with no scope change 
requires a call for review, so we should try to reach consensus within 
the group as soon as possible.

Anssi, given the apparent intent not to change anything in the charter, 
a call for consensus could perhaps be enough to claim victory or get 
people's inputs?

(We'll still need to refresh the charter a bit to note progress on the 
specs since last time the group re-chartered, but that's editorial in 
essence and can be done in parallel, I think)

Francois.

> 
> m.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:52 PM, mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com 
> <mailto:mfoltz@google.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:13 AM, François Daoust <fd@w3.org
>     <mailto: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>
>             <mailto: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>
>                  <mailto: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/>
>                  <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>
>                 
>             <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 20:11:58 UTC

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