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

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

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 10:22:30 -0700
Cc: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-id: <C6B8DE39-2CA3-40B7-ACED-5770CC58E1AA@apple.com>
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>

> On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:09 , Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 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
>> change.
>> 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

editors prepare.  They can discuss with the CG if they like, but the editors are members of this WG.

> 2) CG sends spec snapshot to WG

Editors send.

> 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.

we’re not proud; we’ll take helpful comments from wherever.  ‘Contributions’ in the formal sense, from members of the WG, but I think we’re past that point.

> 8) WG prepares draft response to commenter
> 9) WG chair (David) makes sure that draft response if visible to both WG
> and CG

and indeed the commenters and (i think) the public (as if the public cares, sob).

> 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.

Yes, this is all normal, apart from making sure that the CG is kept aware of matters.

>>> 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.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2015 17:23:01 UTC

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