{Minutes} TTWG Agenda 2019-10-10

Thanks all for attending today's TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2019/10/10-tt-minutes.html


Please note that we made some resolutions; under our decision policy the review period for those ends on 2019-10-24. In particular for IMSC 1.2:

Resolved: Merge #496 and request publication of FPWD

Atsushi will need to hold off making the FPWD request until the end of the decision review period and, assuming there are no unresolved objections at that time, can make the publication request after then.


Those minutes in text format:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

10 October 2019

   [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

      [2] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/71

      [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/10/10-tt-irc


Attendees

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

   Regrets
          Cyril

   Chair
          Nigel, Gary

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

     * [4]Meeting minutes
         1. [5]This meeting
         2. [6]TTML2 Horizontal Review process on the ED
         3. [7]IMSC 1.2 Horizontal Review
         4. [8]TTWG Charter status update
         5. [9]Upcoming meetings
     * [10]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

   Log: [11]https://www.w3.org/2019/10/10-tt-irc


     [11] https://www.w3.org/2019/10/10-tt-irc


This meeting

   Nigel: Today's focus is on getting Horizontal Review going,
   particularly for TTML2 and IMSC 1.2
   … Any other business?

   Glenn: Query re process matter regarding TTML2 2nd Ed, related
   to the HR.

   Nigel: OK let's raise that in the TTML2 HR agenda item
   … any others?

   group: [no other business]

TTML2 Horizontal Review process on the ED

   Glenn: I was reviewing the process document §6.7.2 about
   revising a Rec

   <glenn> [12]https://www.w3.org/2019/

   Process-20190301/#revised-rec

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


   [13]§6.7.2 Revising a Recommendation

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


   Glenn: I was noting that from what I can tell, just above it in
   §6.7 it shows a drawing, that if a substantive
   … change is being made to a Rec with no new features then it
   can go to CR directly, maybe with Director's approval,
   … without going to WD.
   … A WG may request publication of a CR without passing through
   earlier maturity levels but do need to pass WR
   … I want to verify that is the process we will use.

   Nigel: That was my expectation, yes.

   Glenn: I should change the milestone to say CR instead of FPWD.

   Nigel: Yes, you probably should.

   Glenn: I've heard some numbers bandied about for timelines for
   HR and some sounded outlandish to me.
   … Is there anything written down?

   Nigel: It's in our new Charter. that we cannot plan for
   entering CR less than 3 months after beginning HR.
   … It is possible to move on if all the HR groups come back
   quickly I think.

   Atsushi: We do plan for continual engagement with the HR
   groups.

   Glenn: Particularly because we are not having FPWD, and we are
   going to CR to start with, and we have only a
   … small number of substantive changes, maybe we can encourage
   our reviewers in HR to take less than 3 months to
   … do their work.

   Nigel: The Charter doesn't say anything about _how_ the CR was
   entered, i.e. where from, it's the same Rec -> CR as
   … FWPD -> CR

   Glenn: So I should be moving to prepare a CR document.

   <glenn> [14]https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/ttml2-changes.html


     [14] https://w3c.github.io/ttml2/ttml2-changes.html


   Nigel: We will need that but not yet, we should first look at
   the list of changes updated earlier today.

   Glenn: On this changes document I only included 1st Ed Rec ->
   the current ED, and only included the
   … substantive changes. I separated them into syntactical
   changes and semantic (only) changes.
   … The ones that affect syntax and semantics are in the first
   Syntax changes section.
   … I summarised and somewhat abbreviated the title of the pull
   request and included a link to the pull request.
   … It is a slightly different format than previously.
   … I was hoping it would allow more precise review of the
   changes.

   Nigel: I think this list is short enough that each HR group
   will be able to work out what is relevant to them directly.

   Glenn: I agree.

   Nigel: The mechanism for initiating HR: I had hoped to catch up
   on that by now but haven't managed to do it.

   [15]Guide to HR

     [15] https://www.w3.org/Guide/process/charter.html#horizontal-review


   <glenn_> [16]https://www.w3.org/2019/

   Process-20190301/#wide-review

     [16] https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#wide-review


   Nigel: One question for us is which version of our Charter to
   use for HR, and given the new one is nearly finalised (I think)
   … we should use it.

   [17]Draft TTWG Charter

     [17] https://w3c.github.io/charter-timed-text/


   Nigel: For TAG I will say there is no explainer per se, but
   that this is a Rec update based on a series of disparate
   … changes based on feedback.
   … The other groups will have their own processes.
   … We will probably need to complete a self-assessment privacy
   and security section, which I believe is unchanged
   … as a result of any of the changes.
   … The xlink semantic changes would be the closest, but I think
   we've only made improvements.
   … I think I must have the action to begin the HR process. If I
   find any detailed documents need to be created then I
   … may come back for assistance.

   PROPOSAL: Initiate the Horizontal Review process for the
   current TTML2 2nd Ed ED

   Nigel: Any objections, questions, further comments?

   group: [no objections]

   Resolved: Initiate the Horizontal Review process for the
   current TTML2 2nd Ed ED

   Nigel: Any more actions associated with this?

   Glenn: When do you expect to be able to issue the invitation to
   review?

   Nigel: It'd better be before the end of next week since I'm on
   vacation for a couple of weeks after that.

   Glenn: 15th October?

   Nigel: 16th is more likely!

   Glenn: OK

IMSC 1.2 Horizontal Review

   Nigel: I think the process is a little different here. We're
   adding a feature so we need a FPWD.

   [18]IMSC 1.2 FPWD Pull Request

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/imsc/pull/496


   Pierre: Yes, annex L has the summary of substantive changes.

   Nigel: Right, this pull request makes no changes other than to
   fix the state to be a FPWD
   … Any changes to the SOTD needed? I don't think so.
   … You changed [[HTTP]] to [[HTTP11]]?

   Pierre: Specref wasn't happy. Any one HTTP will work, right?

   Glenn: By the way did you update the links to all the TTML2
   feature designators that pointed to the non-final version?

   Pierre: I think that's been corrected.

   Nigel: They look fixed to me, in §6 anyway

   Pierre: Yes they've all been fixed.

   Nigel: Don't the constraints on #font need to be listed in the
   substantive changes?

   Pierre: That's not what we did in the past, people need to use
   the redline to see what has really changed.
   … A question though is if that list at the end is sufficient,
   the combination of Annex L plus GitHub or do we also
   … need a text file with a list of changes?

   Nigel: Any views?

   Gary: Sounds like that would be sufficient. As long as you can
   easily find the changes.

   Nigel: There's no link to the GitHub changes.

   Pierre: I see different levels, [scribe missed, but it was
   detail levels from summary to github commits]

   Nigel: How would a person go about getting the list of GitHub
   changes

   Pierre: I'd look at the Commits.
   … The only reason for that is to see why changes were made.
   … The redline (via the diff service) is the best way to see
   what the changes were.

   Nigel: What I'd like to do here is merge #496, resolve to
   publish FPWD and request the publication, in short order.
   … Does anyone think that would be a bad thing to do given that
   FPWD doesn't represent consensus, and our Decision Policy?

   group: [silence]

   PROPOSAL: Merge #496 and request publication of FPWD

   Nigel: Is it true we cannot do this with echidna for the first
   publication?

   Atsushi: Only for FPWD we cannot use echidna so I need to
   request it.
   … There should be a period for consensus on the mailing list.

   Nigel: Yes we can wait to 10 working days for our Decision
   Policy but I was proposing an exception to that given the case.

   Glenn: I say we go ahead.

   Nigel: Is that okay Atsushi?

   Atsushi: Sorry I actually have no knowledge on that point!

   Nigel: It's just our Charter has a Decision Policy and I'm
   sometimes very strict about it but on this occasion I don't see
   the point.

   Atsushi: I need to record a decision so if a period is stated
   in the Charter I need to point to some sort of minutes or
   … email to say it is decided.

   Glenn: Atsushi, generally it's been my experience that the
   Chairmen of the group can put the question to the group and
   … if there is no objection then the group's position stands. I
   have never heard of a case where a team representative has
   … objected over the wishes over the group and the Chairmen. Do
   you wish to do so?

   Atsushi: I just want to get clear.

   Pierre: Maybe the easy way out is to go forward with the proper
   review period but in the meantime we can send the
   … horizontal review groups the ED so we get the best of all
   worlds.

   Nigel: OK that works, good idea, then we haven't broken any
   policies and can still make progress.

   Resolved: Merge #496 and request publication of FPWD

   Nigel: This marks the beginning of the 2 week review period,
   which still stands.

   PROPOSAL: Based on the ED, request horizontal review

   Nigel: Any objections?

   group: [no objections]

   Resolved: Based on the ED, request horizontal review

   Atsushi: Usually I am asked to give some story to be pointed to
   the W3C blog or other places on the FPWD point.
   … If anything exists please let me know.

   Nigel: Would you mind drafting something Pierre?

   Pierre: Can I see an example?

   Atsushi: I will send you one.

   Nigel: I can do this if Pierre cannot - I'm just trying to
  manage my workload!

   Pierre: Me too

   Nigel: I would go back to the requirements that we decided to
   meet for this version and paraphrase those.

   Nigel: I will raise an action on the ttwg repo for Atushi to
   raise the request to publish FPWD and we can discuss the
   … contents of the request on that issue.

   Atsushi: I will do that.

   Nigel: From the perspective of HR, the changes are minimal so
   I'm expecting a quick review from most groups.

TTWG Charter status update

   Atsushi: The W3C Strategy issue was closed for this, but I have
   no other information from plh

Upcoming meetings

   Nigel: I have regrets for the next 3 meetings. Can I suggest
   that the meetings go ahead with a different Chair?

   Gary: I can probably chair next week but I'm out for the one
   after because of Demuxed.

   Nigel: We're looking at cancelling 24th October then, can you
   do 31st?

   Gary: Yes I can probably make it.

   Nigel: Thank you!

   Nigel: Thanks everyone, we're done for today! [adjourns
   meeting]

Summary of resolutions

    1. [19]Initiate the Horizontal Review process for the current
       TTML2 2nd Ed ED
    2. [20]Merge #496 and request publication of FPWD
    3. [21]Based on the ED, request horizontal review


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    Bert Bos's [22]scribe.perl version Mon Apr 15 13:11:59 2019
    UTC, a reimplementation of David Booth's [23]scribe.perl. See
    [24]history.

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

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

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