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

Request a short charter extension (was: Re: Agenda for Second Screen WG/CG F2F at TPAC)

From: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:25:45 +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: <acede8d8-e90d-9393-9bc8-12167763ba9f@w3.org>
OK, then let's ask for a 2-month extension (until the end of the year) 
to allow us to discuss possible updates to the charter at TPAC and send 
a call for review afterwards.

Anssi and other WG participants, would that be good for you? Let me know 
by next week, Tuesday 3 October, whether you'd like to proceed otherwise.

Thanks,
Francois.


Le 26/09/2017 à 22:51, mark a. foltz a écrit :
> Maybe we should request the shorter extension so we can solicit input at
> TPAC.  My *personal* opinion is that the charter likely won't change in
> scope, but that could certainly change based on in person discussions.
>
> m.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:11 PM, François Daoust <fd@w3.org
> <mailto:fd@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     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>
>         <mailto: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>
>             <mailto: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>>
>                     <mailto: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>>
>                          <mailto: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/>>
>                          <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>>
>
>         <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 Wednesday, 27 September 2017 08:26:02 UTC

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