- From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 21:14:40 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Hi Silvia, > As long as there is no spec fork, it shouldn't make a difference where the work is done or where the contributions find from. There are a number of differences: - the IPR commitments are different within a CG and a WG -- just like member submissions, CG contributions are more complicated to accept than WG member contributions - there is no formal process within a CG, e.g. to deal with objections - having a CG requires folks like myself to participate in two groups instead of one - reports published by CGs cannot be referenced by international standards -- in no small part, because CGs are not due process groups The WebVTT community should be encouraged to join TTWG, if they have not already done so. Best, -- Pierre On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu., 5 Apr. 2018, 3:54 am Pierre-Anthony Lemieux, <pal@sandflow.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi David, >> >> > Because it’s such a joyful experience? >> >> Happy to work with you and Nigel (as chairs of the TTWG) to lower the >> barriers to participation to the TTWG. Encouraging work in a parallel >> group does not help achieve convergence and interoperability. > > > As long as there is no spec fork, it shouldn't make a difference where the > work is done or where the contributions find from. We should take > contributions from the CSS WG and other groups as well as the CG. The CG has > most certainly not had any issues about collaborating on getting the spec to > CR. > > I wouldn't want to create as problem where none exists. > > Kind regards, > Silvia. > >> >> Best, >> >> -- Pierre >> >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:47 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> On Mar 30, 2018, at 14:27 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi David, >> >> >> >>> You’re presuming that substantive changes are coming from the CG >> >> >> >> As a member of the TTWG, I should not have to go through the commit >> >> log to determine whether an FSA exists. >> > >> > Pierre, think for a moment. The question concerns changes proposed from >> > outside the WG, and the same rule applies to all WGs. The chairs are >> > supposed to work with the team to get an IPR commitment. It’s immaterial if >> > the proposer is a member of the CG or not. >> > >> >> >> >> As I understand it, an FSA was obtained from all WebVTT contributors >> >> so far. Is this correct? >> > >> > Yes, an FSA was obtained before we made the first WD in the WG. >> > >> >> >> >>> That gets reviewed by both groups. >> >> >> >> In fact, everyone is encouraged to review W3C recommendations and >> >> provide feedback. The TTWG however manages the WebVTT REC once >> >> published. The CG does not. >> >> >> >>> That we keep mutually informed, and I try to keep in sync. That’s what >> >>> this documents. >> >> >> >> Going forward, I would expect folks that wish to contribute to WebVTT >> >> to join the TTWG. >> > >> > Because it’s such a joyful experience? >> > >> > If people want changes to the Rec. track document, I would expect us to >> > handle it as we would any other proposal for change coming from inside the >> > WG, from a liaison, from another member of the consortium, or anywhere else. >> > Do you refuse to consider proposals and points made by people outside the >> > TTWG for your documents? >> > >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> -- Pierre >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:01 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Mar 30, 2018, at 13:44 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Silvia, >> >>>> >> >>>>> I still believe this paragraph is correct since work on the >> >>>>> specification is done by both groups. >> >>>> >> >>>> This cannot be the case going forward, unless a Final Specification >> >>>> Agreement [1] is secured from everyone in the CG every time a >> >>>> modification is made there. >> >>>> >> >>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/final/ >> >>> >> >>> You’re presuming that substantive changes are coming from the CG, and >> >>> if that happens, I’ll need to use ash-nazg or similar. But during the recent >> >>> periods, the traffic has been the other way. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> In fact, all changes made during CR will be fed back to the CG >> >>>>> specification. >> >>>> >> >>>> Well, it depends on the document license that is used. Which one? >> >>> >> >>> CG reports and W3C rec-track documents are both products of the W3C, >> >>> so between the two, no-one is licensing anything to anyone. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> And it's only fair to be inclusive about explaining >> >>>>> where the work was done for this specification. >> >>>> >> >>>> Yes, the original source of the work can be mentioned, but going >> >>>> forward this is a TTWG specification. >> >>> >> >>> That gets reviewed by both groups. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> It's not like the CG is a non-W3C entity. >> >>>> >> >>>> The CG and WG have different IP regimes and membership. >> >>> >> >>> That we keep mutually informed, and I try to keep in sync. That’s what >> >>> this documents. >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Best, >> >>>> >> >>>> -- Pierre >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer >> >>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> Hi Pierre, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux >> >>>>> <pal@sandflow.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Hi Silvia, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/blob/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/changes.html >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The document shows no changes. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Yes, it's in preparation. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>> Note that in WebVTT we put the snapshots into an "archive" >> >>>>>>> directory rather than keeping additional branches open. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> No need to keep a branch open: a git tag is sufficient (ideally >> >>>>>> accompanied by a github release)... but ok. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Interesting! I guess that works also. Particularly if you have many >> >>>>> publication events. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>> About that extra paragraph: it's not up to me to change it - it >> >>>>>>> was provided like that by Thierry. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> So... you do not object to removing the paragraph? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> As I said: >> >>>>> I still believe this paragraph is correct since work on the >> >>>>> specification is done by both groups. That this snapshot is being >> >>>>> processed by the TTWG should not make a difference to this >> >>>>> statement, >> >>>>> IMHO. In fact, all changes made during CR will be fed back to the CG >> >>>>> specification. And it's only fair to be inclusive about explaining >> >>>>> where the work was done for this specification. It's not like the CG >> >>>>> is a non-W3C entity. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>> This document is governed by the 1 March 2017 W3C Process >> >>>>>>> Document. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The process is out-of-date: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/ >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks, I wasn't aware. Again, I just cut and pasted from what >> >>>>> Thierry >> >>>>> gave me. I'll make a new PR. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Cheers, >> >>>>> Silvia. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- Pierre >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer >> >>>>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Hi Pierre, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> That link is here: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/blob/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/changes.html >> >>>>>>> . >> >>>>>>> Also the diff is here: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/blob/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/diff.html >> >>>>>>> . >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> These will be correct when published to the official W3C TR site >> >>>>>>> because they are relative links. The <base> URL was introduced by >> >>>>>>> htmlpreview which is why they are not rendering directly in the >> >>>>>>> subdirectory. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Note that in WebVTT we put the snapshots into an "archive" >> >>>>>>> directory >> >>>>>>> rather than keeping additional branches open. That reduces >> >>>>>>> confusion >> >>>>>>> in the GitHub repository between what is a branch with data for PR >> >>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>> what is the actual committed content. I still believe it is >> >>>>>>> correct >> >>>>>>> since work on the specification is done by both. That this >> >>>>>>> snapshot is >> >>>>>>> being processed by the TTWG should not make a difference to this >> >>>>>>> statement, IMHO. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Kind Regards, >> >>>>>>> Silvia. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> About that extra paragraph: it's not up to me to change it - it >> >>>>>>> was >> >>>>>>> provided like that by Thierry. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:52 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux >> >>>>>>> <pal@sandflow.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Hi Silvia, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> This does not seem right: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/webvtt/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/changes.html >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Also, can the following be removed since the specification is now >> >>>>>>>> managed by TTWG: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> """ >> >>>>>>>> Work on this specification is being undertaken both in the Web >> >>>>>>>> Media >> >>>>>>>> Text Tracks Community Group as well as in the W3C Timed Text >> >>>>>>>> Working >> >>>>>>>> Group. The latter group works towards a W3C Recommendation for >> >>>>>>>> reference purposes with interoperability requirements, while the >> >>>>>>>> former is a Draft Community Group Report that continues to >> >>>>>>>> evolve. >> >>>>>>>> """ >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -- Pierre >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer >> >>>>>>>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> David jumped the gun with his email a little - Thierry and I >> >>>>>>>>> first >> >>>>>>>>> needed to land that pull request. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> You can find the proper link at >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/blob/gh-pages/archives/2018-04-15/Overview.html >> >>>>>>>>> . >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >> >>>>>>>>> Silvia. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 3:43 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Thierry wrote the status of this document, not me. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I think he also has a better URL for it, but I can’t find it. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 30, 2018, at 9:23 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux >> >>>>>>>>>>> <pal@sandflow.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi David et al., >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> This document is not hosted on the W3C github repo? Why not >> >>>>>>>>>>> simply >> >>>>>>>>>>> create a CR branch at https://github.com/w3c/webvtt ? >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, the following paragraph should be removed since this >> >>>>>>>>>>> specification is managed by TTWG exclusively at this point -- >> >>>>>>>>>>> the CG >> >>>>>>>>>>> has no control over it. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> No formal control, indeed, but we are trying (and so far >> >>>>>>>>>> succeeding) to avoid forks and differences, so I prefer to keep the >> >>>>>>>>>> paragraph. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> """Work on this specification is being undertaken both in the >> >>>>>>>>>>> Web >> >>>>>>>>>>> Media Text Tracks Community Group as well as in the W3C Timed >> >>>>>>>>>>> Text >> >>>>>>>>>>> Working Group. The latter group works towards a W3C >> >>>>>>>>>>> Recommendation for >> >>>>>>>>>>> reference purposes with interoperability requirements, while >> >>>>>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>>> former is a Draft Community Group Report that continues to >> >>>>>>>>>>> evolve.""" >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> -- Pierre >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:16 AM, David Singer >> >>>>>>>>>>> <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> [sending again as plain text in case the HTML format was >> >>>>>>>>>>>> hiding a spurious link] >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> All, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> following this week's call giving conceptual approval pending >> >>>>>>>>>>>> the preparation of the CR document, and the preparation by Thierry and >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Silvia of the CR draft at >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/silviapfeiffer/webvtt-spec/blob/f8da4f27205ed2c11b7dedbf46d91b363eaafe9b/archives/2018-04-15/Overview.html> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is now ready for us to request transition to Candidate Recommendation: I >> >>>>>>>>>>>> think that the obvious typo in “Diff from previous” has been or will >> >>>>>>>>>>>> imminently be fixed. This email is a call for consensus to make the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> transition based on this version of the document; barring any objections >> >>>>>>>>>>>> within the WG's Decision Policy period of 10 working days as defined in the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Charter, I will ask for this transition request to be made. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> (Thierry/Silvia, if there is a better link, let us know) >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> For transition request purposes, assuming no objections, I >> >>>>>>>>>>>> will record this as a resolution in the minutes of the next call. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please review the document and if possible confirm that you >> >>>>>>>>>>>> agree with this resolution; silence will be taken as acceptance, but an >> >>>>>>>>>>>> explicit approval would be much appreciated. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you spot any problems please raise issues as normal on the >> >>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub repository. We can make minor editorial fixes such as typo fixes any >> >>>>>>>>>>>> time. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who contributed to the push to get to this >> >>>>>>>>>>>> state over the last few months: this represents a lot of hard work. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> kind regards, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> David >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> David Singer >> >>>>>>>>>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >> >>> David Singer >> >>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. >> >>> >> > >> > David Singer >> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. >> >
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2018 04:15:28 UTC