Re: edited TTWG draft charter, VTT?

Hi Pierre,

thats what Im talking about: the time spent in this group on moving
WebVTT to CR has been negligible. All the effort has been done by
others outside the group. This group was tasked with a transition it
basically has no interest in.

And about exit criteria: this is the first CR of WebVTT. It has more
implementations and complete features than the very first time TTML
went to CR - there's no way you can compare the status of the two
specifications at first CR and not see this difference.

I am not angry about this - it is what it is. I'd just like the
decision to be made.

Kind Regards,
Silvia.


On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:26 AM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux
<pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
> Hi Silvia,
>
>> No other specification in the history of W3C has had to jump through this many hoops to get to CR.
>
> As far as I know, WebVTT has been held to the same criteria for CR
> transition as IMSC (and TTML2).
>
> For better or for worse, the group has collectively spent multiple
> hundreds of man-hours closing
> issues leading up to the TTML2 CR.
>
> Best,
>
> -- Pierre
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If there is a decision this group should take, it's to move webvtt to CR. I
>> challenge you to get this done rather than throw another process roadblock
>> at webvtt.
>>
>> It's ready and has been for a long time. No other specification in the
>> history of W3C has had to jump through this many hoops to get to CR.
>>
>> All other groups of the W3C have deemed it ready for months of not years.
>>
>> Do everyone a favour and just decide to move it.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>> On Tue., 27 Mar. 2018, 3:16 am Nigel Megitt, <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not so much an opinion as a restatement - at this point we seem to be in
>>> the realm of process. We made the following resolution at TPAC 2016 in
>>> Lisbon [1] as proposed by David Singer:
>>>
>>> > RESOLUTION: If we do not move WebVTT to CR in this Charter period then
>>> >we will not include it in any new Charter.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/19-tt-minutes.html#resolution01
>>>
>>> If there's another way to meet the needs of the folk who want to progress
>>> VTT, then one way to satisfy that resolution is to close this line of work
>>> in TTWG and remove it from the draft new Charter; I think the Process
>>> requires publication as a WG Note in this event. I assume that this does
>>> not preclude taking it up again in another WG or other forum.
>>>
>>> I can't actually see any other ways to satisfy the resolution - are there
>>> any?
>>>
>>> Otherwise we would need to make a new different decision very quickly (and
>>> our Decision Policy review period for any decision made now expires after
>>> the end of the current Charter, so time is not in favour); before doing
>>> that I would ideally like to see some evidence that something has changed
>>> to warrant us revisiting it.
>>>
>>> For tracking purposes, I raised
>>> https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/issues/21 on Thursday 22nd
>>> March.
>>>
>>> Nigel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/03/2018, 17:21, "David Singer" <singer@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I¹m in debate with Silvia over the progression of VTT.  Do others have
>>> >opinions?
>>> >
>>> >With WhatWG on a firmer footing, much of the original motivation to do a
>>> >Rec. has evaporated, and at this point looks like a lot of busy work to
>>> >little reward. Are there people who see it differently?
>>> >
>>> >> On Mar 23, 2018, at 3:16 , Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> I have edited the TTWG draft charter with the changes agreed during our
>>> >>TTWG telecon.
>>> >> Please review the draft charter
>>> >>
>>> >> https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/Draft-2018-TTWG-Charter.html
>>> >>
>>> >> Deadline is Monday midnight US coast. I will send the charter on
>>> >>tuesday to W3M for approval, and will request a charter extension.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thierry
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >David Singer
>>> >
>>> >singer@mac.com
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>

Received on Monday, 26 March 2018 18:33:32 UTC