W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > April 2015

Re: {minutes} TTWG Meeting 2015-04-02

From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 11:09:25 +0000
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D14976E9.1DFB6%nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
On 02/04/2015 17:58, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:

>I am so sorry, I totally spaced this morning.  I meant to call in!
>Once we are sure we have both (a) the comments or lack of, from the
>reviewers and (b) a disposition for each comment, I don’t see a problem
>with me or someone writing up a proposed summary for review by the WG and
>presentation to the director.
>At the moment, I am more focused on making sure we get the comments.
>I meant to encourage everyone to look at the bug tracker for the comments
>they care about, and subscribe to it if they want notifications, also.  I
>assume we don’t need the WG mailing list automatically notified on every
>I am aware of the different modus operandi here between the VTT community
>and the TTML community, and I want to make sure we respect both: please
>let me know if you think information is not flowing, and we’ll see what
>we can do to address it.
>Yes, a CR transition is formally the WG’s to handle, so the comments, the
>discussion, the proposed resolution, all need to be visible here.
>As a joint chair I expect it’s my job to do any bridging here.  Let me
>know what you need.  The good news is that the data is all there if you
>know where to look.

Looks to me as though the flow of information, broken down into detailed
steps is like this:

 1) CG prepares spec
 2) CG sends spec snapshot to WG
 3) WG publishes spec snapshot on TR
 4) WG requests review
 5) reviewers respond to WG
 6) WG chair (David) makes sure that all comments are visible to both WG
and CG

<for each comment:>
 7) members of CG and members of WG (and members of both) discuss the
response, including any proposed spec changes.
 8) WG prepares draft response to commenter
 9) WG chair (David) makes sure that draft response if visible to both WG
and CG
10) After a suitable review period, WG responds to commenter with response
11) Commenter has a fixed period to signal disposition to the WG response
</for each comment>

12) WG chair (David) or staff contact (Thierry) collates commenter's
dispositions in some suitable document, makes visible to both WG and CG.
13) WG chair includes report of all dispositions in request to transition
to next stage of maturity.

Which I think answers the question about what bridging is needed.

We're up to step 4 or 5 for some reviewers and step 7 for (at least) i18n.

>> On Apr 2, 2015, at 8:14 , Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>> WebVTT comments
>>    tmichel: A couple of months ago I talked to the staff contact
>>    of the interaction domain for CSS,
>>    ... HTML and i18n, and requested them to ask their WGs to
>>    review the WebVTT FPWD. About a
>>    ... month later we have received a good set of feedback
>>    comments from i18n. We're still missing
>>    ... the other three. A few days ago I pinged again Bert and
>>    Mike. For CSS, Bert has added the
>>    ... review request to the next CSS agenda. For HTML Paul Cotton
>>    has followed up on Dave's message.
>>    ... So we should be set on those two. For accessibility, I know
>>    plh has pinged Judy again a few days
>>    ... ago so I hope to get feedback from them but I can't say
>>    when. I'd like to get the feedback so we
>>    ... can move to CR when ready.
>>    ... Another issue is how we handle the comments. Currently
>>    they're archived in the CG. So at some
>>    ... point we will have to respond to the commenter and get
>>    agreement from them so how are we
>>    ... going to track that?
>>    atai: Because the comments are on the CG bug tracker and the
>>    responses are there, should this be
>>    ... delegated to one place so that everyone can see them? I
>>    don't think it makes sense to have a
>>    ... separate tracker for that.
>>    tmichel: Okay. At some point we have to demonstrate wide review
>>    to the Director, so are you saying
>>    ... just look into the archive?
>>    atai: So it has to be proved that there has been a review and
>>    that the comments have been
>>    ... incorporated into the document?
>>    tmichel: We should have responded to the comments and got
>>    acceptance for whatever action we
>>    ... have taken.
>>    atai: Does this need to be a formal list of raised issues and
>>    how they've been communicated and dealt with?
>>    tmichel: Yes, at some point we should have a list of the
>>    comments and at least some wording from
>>    ... i18n to say that they're satisfied with each comment. That
>>    would be good enough.
>>    atai: Can this be done in the CG, to ask them to follow a
>>    specific procedure to satisfy the process?
>>    tmichel: It's not a problem to have it in the CG. We just need
>>    to show the evidence to the Director.
>>    atai: My only question is how we handle the same spec in
>>    parallel in the CG and the WG. Is there a
>>    ... communication with the CG about the complete process?
>>    tmichel: I think the CG chair is Dave Singer and there's no
>>    staff contact. It doesn't matter who
>>    ... does the job of reporting. What we need is at least a basic
>>    document describing the dispositions.
>>    nigel: For IMSC 1 we used the dispositions tracker, but I guess
>>    that's not the only way.
>>    tmichel: Agreed. We need at least something.
>>    atai: Is it possible just to have a spreadsheet referencing the
>>    bugs?
>>    tmichel: Yes I think that's good enough.
>>    atai: And then link to the bug tracker?
>>    tmichel: Yes that's good enough. You do need the final
>>    agreement from i18n.
>>    atai: So we check back with them?
>>    tmichel: Yes
>>    pal: We just went through that with IMSC 1 - why not go through
>>    the same process?
>>    tmichel: We certainly can.
>>    atai: I see the problem being additional overhead. Of course it
>>    worked fine. From my perspective
>>    ... we need to check that it's okay for the CG. That's my only
>>    concern.
>>    pal: But there's only a single consensus group for this work,
>>    and it's this group. The other group
>>    ... could be a place for the exchange of ideas, but the formal
>>    place where the work happens is in
>>    ... this group if I'm not mistaken.
>>    atai: That's right, but the groups work differently.
>>    pal: But as far as W3C is concerned there's only one group and
>>    its this one.
>>    glenn: Agreed. Managing the comms is the challenge. There have
>>    been a lot of cross-postings
>>    ... which is useful for allowing everyone to have an input, but
>>    I think the formal decision process
>>    ... has to happen here.
>>    atai: Can we agree on this without Dave Singer being here?
>>    ... What would be good would be to have a close cooperation
>>    with the CG.
>>    nigel: There are a number of people interested in progressing
>>    WebVTT who are in both groups
>>    ... so I'd encourage those people to take the lead on this.
>>    Loretta: I think we'd have a hard time persuading the CG to do
>>    the paperwork but any changes to
>>    ... the document do need to be agreed by the CG.
>>    pal: I think by choosing to put WebVTT on the Rec track that
>>    demonstrated a commitment to follow
>>    ... the W3C process so that needs to happen.
>>    nigel: Can I propose that someone who is a member of the WG
>>    takes ownership of the comments
>>    ... and documents them, and liaises with the CG to agree all
>>    actions and responses in both groups?
>>    ... Can anyone volunteer for that?
>>    Loretta: Can we pick up on this next week?
>>    tmichel: Are you proposing a 'two tick' system where both the
>>    CG and the WG approve every
>>    ... response to each comment? As well as the original commenter
>>    e.g. i18n.
>>    nigel: We could do that - I'm not actually bothered about
>>    whether the trail of approval between
>>    ... CG and WG is on the dispositions document or if its managed
>>    separately. But what I do care about
>>    ... is that the WG doesn't propose a response that is not
>>    acceptable to the CG.
>>    tmichel: This is fairly new so we don't have much prior example
>>    to work from.
>>    nigel: It's a good time to be creative with ideas!
>>    ... If you do have any ideas please bring them to the table
>>    next Friday.
>David Singer
>Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 11:09:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:43:47 UTC