- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 09:12:36 +0100
- To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
- Cc: Silvia Pfieffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
OK, let’s try again. Any Contributions from outside the WG need consideration of how to handle the IPR question; the only material consideration is whether the organization is a member of the WG. It’s immaterial whether they are a member of the CG, the church of the flying spaghetti monster, or anything else. Having a CG is the normal model for the W3C for where exploration and incubation of new ideas (if any) happen. I don’t see any reason to buck the trend. The CG also provides a broader community review for the work. Currently we have managed to have a single specification with no technical divergence, and so I think this is a storm in a teacup (or spaghetti bowl). There isn’t a problem here, and there are no signs of one developing. > On Apr 5, 2018, at 5:14 , Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> wrote: > > 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. >>>> David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2018 08:13:06 UTC