{Minutes} TTWG Meeting 2019-11-21

Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/11/21-tt-minutes.html


Please note we resolved to publish a CR of TTML2 when the HR and WR process has completed, scheduled for 28th Jan 2020 at the latest. The review period for that resolution under our Decision Policy expires on 5th December.

In text format:

   [1]W3C

      [1] https://www.w3.org/


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

21 November 2019

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/79

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/11/21-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Atsushi, Gary, Glenn, Nigel, Philippe, Pierre

   Regrets
          Cyril

   Chair
          Nigel, Gary

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

     * [4]Meeting minutes
         1. [5]This meeting
         2. [6]IMSC 1.2 FPWD Publication
         3. [7]Publications Timelines
         4. [8]Holiday period meetings
         5. [9]Process 2020
         6. [10]Meeting close
     * [11]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

This meeting

   Log: [12]https://www.w3.org/2019/11/21-tt-irc


     [12] https://www.w3.org/2019/11/21-tt-irc


   Nigel: [iterates through agenda]
   … Any other business?

   Glenn: I'd like to chat about starting a CR for TTML2 2nd Ed

   Nigel: Let's cover that in the publications timeline bit

   Pierre: I'd like to tackle the IMSC 1.2 FPWD publication

   Nigel: OK
   … Anyone else?

IMSC 1.2 FPWD Publication

   Philippe: I have an update.
   … Unfortunately because you guys have an ongoing Charter and I
   ran into trouble myself
   … I downgraded getting the Director to approve the new Charter.
   My fault, I apologise for that.
   … Unfortunately as Thierry reminded us we are not supposed to
   do a Call for Exclusions while a Charter is not
   … approved by the Director.
   … I approved the publication for the FPWD but the Charter won't
   get approved until Wednesday next week.
   … Then the publication would be Thursday next week.

   Pierre: It's fine. Can we make sure that this time it is going
   to hold?
   … For instance who is going to handle the publication?
   … There was confusion in the past.

   Philippe: Atsushi will look after this publication.

   Pierre: Please could you send an email explaining the steps and
   indicating if anything is missing to proceed with publication?

   Atsushi: Yes, I will update my checklist and send it.

   Pierre: I'm trying to avoid hearing next Thursday that we're
   missing some steps.

   Philippe: I understand. You guys know what you're doing, you
   should do it.

   Atsushi: I think we need to send the request for FPWD to sys
   team?

   Philippe: To Web Rec. Prep the document yourself and ask Pierre
   to double check, or Pierre could prepare it.

   Atsushi: For publication request I was told I need to send a
   request to public-publish to sys team

   <plh> webreq@w3.org

   Philippe: Send it to webreq - the transition document explains
   the process.
   … I will remind you where to find the information.

   Pierre: Can we set up a meeting tomorrow afternoon to review
   that live? I'm already thinking we're not going to make it.

   Philippe: Can we do it next week?

   Pierre: It might be too late already.

   Philippe: As long as we can send it no later than Wednesday
   then we're good.
   … Can we do it after the call after it is adjourned?

   Pierre; I have another meeting after.

   <plh> [13]https://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions?profile=FPWD


     [13] https://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions?profile=FPWD


   Nigel: If we can do it in 10 minutes lets do it now.

   Philippe: There's a pointer.

   <plh> 1. prepare for publishing on Thursday November 26

   Atsushi: Nigel sent a two line description

   Nigel: Yes I did

   <plh> 2. once it passes, send an email to webreq@w3.org for
   them on Thursday. give the pointer [14]https://github.com/w3c/

   transitions/issues/180

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/180


   Philippe: I've made clear that the only blocker is the Charter,
   so I'll give you a pointer to the documentation to that

   <atsushi> most of required format checks have done:
   [15]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Nov/

   0013.html

     [15] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2019Nov/0013.html


   Philippe: For Atsushi's benefit, here's an example in webreq of
   a previous example FPWD.

   <plh> [16]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/webreq/2019Oct/

   0032.html example of FPWD webreq

     [16] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/webreq/2019Oct/0032.html


   Atsushi: I want to say I know how to do this.

   Philippe: Anything else you need? Is this clear enough?
   … Please copy to webreq. Pierre, I encourage you to check
   Atsushi's work and not wait until next Thursday.

   Philippe: Please double check the link he gives is the proper
   document.

   Pierre: Is this a zip file, a pointer to a branch? What do you
   expect to give to webreq?

   Atsushi: I will point to a URL to our website to them.

   Pierre: I can't upload to /TR

   Philippe: Atsushi will upload it, and send a link for you to
   check that it is indeed the proper document, a double check.
   … I trust Atsushi to do the right thing.

   Atsushi: I will send it next Wednesday

   Nigel: Can I suggest it gets uploaded tomorrow or Monday so we
   can check it in advance of the request on Wednesday?

   Pierre: When do you think you can have it in /TR Atsushi?

   Atsushi: I can do it by this weekend, before Monday.

   Pierre: OK so you need me to update the publication date on the
   FPWD branch?

   Atsushi: I can upload after changing locally, but that would
   help me.
   … Uploading the PR is of course better.

   Pierre: OK so you'll pull everything from the imsc1.2-fpwd
   branch?

   Atsushi: Yes

   Pierre: OK I will update that branch right now for a
   publication date of next Thursday
   … Any other change you'd like?

   Atsushi: I don't see any other changes required.

   Nigel: When will the pubrules and link checkers get run on it?

   Pierre: I ran them in the past so they should be ok

   Atsushi: I ran them earlier in the month so they should be
   fine.

   Philippe: All good? If things get delayed further put me back
   in the loop.

   Nigel: That feels like all we need to do.

   Philippe: The Charter will be released on Wednesday or
   Thursday.

   Nigel: Will the end date be extended to the 2 years?

   Philippe: I will update it to be 2 years from the publication
   date to reflect the proper date.
   … I made some changes earlier this week and sent them to the
   AC.

   Nigel: The one change we are not making is in response to David
   Singer/Apple's comment. He wanted to remove
   … "online" from "online media". I thought it was a good change
   but don't want to block on it.

   Nigel: Any views?

   Pierre: Whatever gets us approved faster?

   Nigel: It won't make any difference for anyone.

   Philippe: It won't block anything.

   Nigel: Is it more likely to get blocked if we don't make the
   change?

   Philippe: Do I have permission to make the change if it does
  block it.

   Nigel: Any objections?

   Pierre: It was originally put in to avoid overlapping with
   broadcast media.
   … My inclination would be not to make the change. If there's an
   objection then keep it as is.

   Nigel: It's overtaken by events in the sense that there is a
   broadcast format for TTML
   … I propose that we do the AC review comment and remove the
   word "online".

   Andreas: I agree

   Philippe: OK I will let the AC Review group know.

   Nigel: Just to confirm no objections to removing "online" from
   "online media"?

   group: no objections

   Philippe: OK thank you

   Resolved: Change the Charter wording "online media" to "media"

Publications Timelines

   Nigel: This needs to include TTML2 CR

   Glenn: There are no issues or PRs open against TTML2 2nd Ed so
   I'd like to proceed with preparing the CR version.
   … At this point it is basically a strictly editorial no spec
   change task to swap out the entities dtd.
   … The only issue is what date should I prepare it for.
   … Do we need to issue a CfC or not?
   … If we put a 10 day CfC then the earliest would be Dec 5 if we
   allow 2 weeks from today.
   … If I prepare that document today what date should I put in
   for publication?

   PROPOSAL: Publish CR of TTML2 2nd Edition

   Nigel: Any comments or objections?

   group: [none]

   Resolved: Publish CR of TTML2 2nd Edition

   Nigel: The decision policy review period will expire on Dec 5

   Philippe: We can send a transition request on that day
   … Then the earliest publication date would be Dec 12.

   <plh> [17]https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/

   milestones/?cr=2019-12-12

     [17] https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2019-12-12


   Nigel: I think that's your answer Glenn

   Philippe: Who will prepare the transition request?

   <plh> [18]https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/new/choose


     [18] https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/new/choose


   Nigel: I would like to ask the team contact to do this. Atsushi
   do you need some words for this?

   Glenn: This is a CR for a revised Rec?

   Philippe: The CR-New template is used, this will be an Amended
   Rec
   … We just called it Amended as a sub-category - it still says
   CR at the top

   Glenn: But it doesn't go through FPWD process

   Philippe: You still have to demonstrate WR as part of that

   <plh> [19]https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#revised-rec


     [19] https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#revised-rec


   Nigel: Wait up, we haven't had HR comments back from all the
   groups yet, and we might need to wait up to 3 months
   … according to our Charter.

   Nigel: [20]https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/75 says we began
   HR on 16th Oct

     [20] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/75


   Philippe: So we can publish CR on Jan 17 unless we get HR
   responses earlier.
   … You should follow up on your HR requests saying we think
   we're ready, do you mind if we publish?

   Nigel: OK that's an action for me

   Glenn: As a follow-up would it be prudent for me to go ahead
   and prepare a draft of the CR document itself and at
   … least have it available in the GitHub repo?

   <plh> [21]https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/

   milestones/?cr=2020-01-28

     [21] https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/?cr=2020-01-28


   Nigel: yes, if you can leave it in an unmerged PR.

   Philippe: Earliest date if no positive responses is Jan 28

   Pierre: I like Glenn's suggestion. We should set everything up
   for Jan 28 but in the meantime we are completely
   … ready and it will happen automatically.

   Philippe: Jan 28 assuming transition request no later than Jan
   21

   Glenn: OK I'll approve that and then if we get full approval we
   can change the dates and move it faster.

   Philippe: That sounds good

   Glenn: I'll do that then

   Philippe: Are you ready to go to PR too?

   Glenn: We have all the tests, so we need to make an
   implementation report

   Philippe: You need a draft IR for the transition request.
   Because this is for amending, the Director would expect to
   … see an actual IR with something in it.
   … By the way Process 2020 has a proposal allowing Amended Rec
   without going all the way back to CR

   Nigel: Have we got enough implementations?

   Glenn: Yes I think we're in good shape there. I know at least
   one implementation, I need to check on a 2nd one.

   Philippe: Do you expect to retire the previous Rec

   Glenn: The 1st Ed will be marked as obsolete

   Philippe: In the SOTD make it clear what you expect. We don't
   want to ask AC too many questions. If it is in the SOTD
   … then it's good enough. When we publish the Rec we
   automatically implement whatever was in there.

   <plh> [22]https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml/all/


     [22] https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml/all/


   Philippe: Reminder that there is a story to tell, which is at
   the above link
   … That's everything we know about TTML from /TR. Tell us what
   you expect to find there when you publish as Rec.

   Glenn: This doesn't change TTML1 3rd Ed.

   <plh> Chairs dashboard: [23]https://www.w3.org/PM/Groups/

   chairboard.html?gid=34314

     [23] https://www.w3.org/PM/Groups/chairboard.html?gid=34314


   Nigel: I don't think there are any other publications coming
   down the line in the immediate feature.
   … For the modules and the AD profile of TTML2 I don't think any
   is ready to go.
  … My time is more squeezed than normal at the moment and I
   expect to do the AD profile early next year and then
   … move on to the Live extensions.
   … Any timelines or progress plans for any other modules?

   group: no

   Nigel: I will assume we are not ready then until someone says
   we are!

   <plh> [24]https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/all/ (for IMSC)

     [24] https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc/all/


Holiday period meetings

   Nigel: I propose to cancel our calls on 26th Dec and 2nd Jan.

   group: quiet acceptance

   Glenn: 28th Nov is a holiday in the US, regrets from me for
   that day.

   Nigel: Please add regrets to the GitHub issue for our meeting
   on 28th, and I'll make a call on cancelling it if there are
   … too many.

   Pierre: Re the 28th, any particular urgent agenda items?

   Nigel: Not that I'm aware of now

   Pierre: I will not send regrets just in case there is an issue
   with IMSC 1.2

   Nigel: OK by default we will go ahead next week

   Pierre: If IMSC 1.2 goes ahead with publication and Glenn is
   absent then it will be hard to make any other progress

   Nigel: I agree
   … As well as sending regrets, please send agenda items.

Process 2020

   Philippe: We've been having conversations in the AB about
   Process 2020.
   … We're getting feedback that it is hard to understand,
   including in the AB.
   … We need to communicate Process 2020 and understand it.
   … How much does this WG care about this subject.

   Nigel: If you're saying you're aware that comms about 2020 have
   not been clear then it's unfair to ask if we care!

   Philippe: We did a presentation at TPAC - if you want a
   dedicated session and are interested then I'm happy to
   … help this group. We will do a consultation in January, but
   not tailored to the TTWG.

   Nigel: [tries to summarise some key points that would be
   relevant to TTWG in Process 2020]

   Pierre: I've not been studying it closely. It would be good to
   have an explainer of the practical implications for this group.
   … Is there a white paper that explains the basic differences?

   Philippe: Yes but it's a long one. We don't have anything
   tailored to this group.

   Pierre: Please make that white paper available to this group
   when it is published.

   Philippe: I'll add a link to the explainer. Feel free to add an
   agenda item and ask me to attend a future meeting.
   … Some groups don't see versioning as important, but you guys
   do. Not all groups are interested in Living Standards.

   Nigel: OK we'll consider that again when there's an explainer
   available and maybe come back to you.

Meeting close

   Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're a little over time. Plan for next
   week is to go ahead, to be reviewed when we have a
   … clearer idea of the regrets and the agenda items. [adjourns
   meeting]

Summary of resolutions

    1. [25]Change the Charter wording "online media" to "media"
    2. [26]Publish CR of TTML2 2nd Edition


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    Bert Bos's [27]scribe.perl version Mon Apr 15 13:11:59 2019
    UTC, a reimplementation of David Booth's [28]scribe.perl. See
    [29]history.

     [27] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

     [28] https://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

     [29] https://github.com/w3c/scribe2/commits/master/scribe.perl