- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:47:13 -0700
- 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>
> 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 Friday, 30 March 2018 21:47:54 UTC