W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > January 2018

Re: TTML2 - getting to CR

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 08:10:13 +0100
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Cc: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <b6c643ca-9902-4bc2-7a80-5235844e526a@w3.org>
Pierre,

The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the W3C 
Process
https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#wide-review


but the process says:
[
For all Transition Requests, to advance a specification to a new 
maturity level other than Note, the Working Group:

- must record the group's decision to request advancement.
- must obtain Director approval.
- must provide public documentation of all substantive changes to the 
technical report since the previous publication.
- must formally address all issues raised about the document since the 
previous maturity level.
- must provide public documentation of any Formal Objections.
- should provide public documentation of changes that are not substantive.
- should report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for 
this document have changed since the previous step.
- should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
- should provide information about implementations known to the Working 
Group.
For a First Public Working Draft there is no "previous maturity level", 
so many requirements do not apply, and approval is normally fairly 
automatic. For later stages, especially transition to Candidate or 
Proposed Recommendation, there is usually a formal review meeting to 
ensure the requirements have been met before Director's approval is given.

https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#transition-reqs
]


Therfore, we must formally address all issues raised about the document 
since the previous maturity level. I beleive that if those wide review 
issues are not resolved or not accepted to be deferred to a next version 
by the commenter, then we will have to make our case to the director for 
transtion to CR.

Thierry




On 25/01/2018 20:26, Nigel Megitt wrote:
> I’m actually not certain. Thierry, do you know?
> 
>> On 25 Jan 2018, at 18:48, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Nigel,
>>
>>> 13 are i18n comments.
>>
>> Can you confirm that these will need to be closed (and not merely
>> deferred to a future CR) as a matter of process before CR?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -- Pierre
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> We agreed to move to CR of TTML2 by the end of January. I think we have
>>> general acceptance that a 2 week slip at this stage would be acceptable,
>>> i.e. the proposal to transition would be discussed in the TTWG call on 15th
>>> February. However, in order to complete work on the open issues, they all
>>> would need a pull request to be opened by 1st February at the latest so that
>>> they can be closed within our normal 2 week period, assuming there are no
>>> outstanding objections to closing them.
>>>
>>> Looking at the ttml2 issues list, and filtering out all those with open or
>>> merged pull requests, and all editorial issues, there are 44 open issues.
>>> Of those, 6 are discussed and agreed. 13 are i18n comments. So 25 issues
>>> have been opened by group members and have no agreed resolution at this
>>> stage, and 31 have no open pull request yet.
>>>
>>> We are very soon going to have to decide to defer some issues to a future
>>> version or slip even further back. Group members have expressed strong views
>>> against further slippage in the past and I have no reason to believe the
>>> situation has changed. I am treating 15th February as the hard deadline, at
>>> which point all required pull requests must have been merged.
>>>
>>> This means that the Editors need to know as soon as possible if there are
>>> any issues that need particular prioritisation for creating pull requests.
>>>
>>> It also means that if any member is intending to raise a formal objection to
>>> transitioning to CR based on any particular issues not being resolved, then
>>> it would be fair to
>>>
>>> a) inform the group of those issues as soon as possible and
>>> b) lend a hand preparing pull requests that would resolve them.
>>>
>>> I have added a "blocks CR" label to the TTML2 repository. Please could any
>>> members who would object to transitioning to CR based on issues not being
>>> resolved add this label to the relevant issues. If possible also prepare a
>>> pull request in the next week against the issue.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Nigel
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
> 
Received on Friday, 26 January 2018 07:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 26 January 2018 07:10:23 UTC