{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2022-12-08

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2022/12/08-tt-minutes.html

We made one Resolution, which is a WG Decision following our Decision Policy, arising from the CfC sent immediately after the meeting 2 weeks ago. This concerns the proposals made by the FO Council for the Timed Text Working Group Charter, which we accepted.

CfC: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2022Nov/0011.html
Resolution: https://www.w3.org/2022/12/08-tt-minutes.html#r01

RESOLUTION: Merge the pull request and Chair(s) to email team and FO Council Chair with status update.

I have already emailed the team and FO Council Chair per that action.

Those minutes in text format:

   [1]W3C

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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

08 December 2022

   [2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2022/11/24-tt-minutes.html
      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/234
      [4] https://www.w3.org/2022/12/08-tt-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Atsushi, Chris_Needham, Cyril, Gary, Nigel, Pierre

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          cpn, nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]Rechartering Formal Objection Council and CfC conclusion
    3. [7]IMSC-HRM CR1 Exit Criteria w3c/imsc-hrm#56 (Draft Pull
       Request)
    4. [8]DAPT
    5. [9]Meeting close
    6. [10]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Agenda for today:
   … Rechartering Formal Objection Council status update and CfC
   conclusion
   … DAPT Issue review
   … IMSC-HRM (CR1 Exit Criteria)
   … Any other business?
   … One from me: I said a very long time ago that I would propose
   a working method
   … for Registries in TTWG and I haven't done it, and we need it
   soon, so I'll try to get that
   … done by the first meeting of next year.

  Rechartering Formal Objection Council and CfC conclusion

   github: [11]https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/84

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/84

   Nigel: I haven't received any objections, and some folk have
   said it looks good.
   … Gary, Atsushi, have you received any objections?

   Gary: No

   Atsushi: No

   Nigel: There are 2 unresolved conversations on the pull
   request.
   … The first is about changing "Content producing
   implementation" to "Content implementation"
   … as mentioned by Amy last time.
   … 5 days ago Amy asked Tess if she'd be okay with removing
   "producing" and there's no answer.
   … Are we now in limbo?!
   … Any preferences for what we do here?

   Gary: What would be the next step after we merge?

   Atsushi: I believe this scenario should be the first case in FO
   Council so I'm not quite sure what we should
   … or can do here, but I believe the best way is to continue the
   conversation with the FO Council.
   … As far as I can tell, all of the FO Council decided to accept
   or deny, so to be honest I believe this
   … conversation should be a good input to the W3C Process on FO
   Council matters.
   … I have no idea for the best option here.

   Nigel: I think, if we've reflected on the FO council proposal
   and accepted, that should be the end of the matter.
   … So the next step should be to approve the charter and move
   on. I don't see scope in the Process for further argument or
   discussion

   Atsushi: I would believe so

   Chris: The concern I have here is that the FO Council proposed
   a wording change and then Tess
   … is saying she doesn't like the word "producing" so she's in
   disagreement with the Council.

   Gary: We don't know that.

   Nigel: I think it's slightly the other way round: Tess wanted
   the word "producing" and the Chair of the FO Council
   … proposed removing it.
   … What I'd like to do here is what the Chair of the FO Council
   said, and remove the word "producing".

   Chris: Oh I see, I got it. And there's no reply from Tess yet.

   Nigel: The other conversation is about the "for example" using
   conformance language. I've changed "MAY" to "may" as Amy
   suggested, and she hasn't objected
   … So I'll go ahead and resolve that conversation
   … We now have all conversations resolved. Does anyone on the
   call have anything to say about the change from "content
   producing implementation" to "content implementation"?

   (no replies)

   Nigel: So let's take a WG decision, the CfC has run its course,
   and merge the PR. The next stage is to email Atsushi and Amy to
   say we believe the charter is good to go, following the
   objection review process

   Gary: Sounds good

   Atsushi: I agree

   RESOLUTION: Merge the pull request and Chair(s) to email team
   and FO Council Chair with status update.

   github-bot, end topic

  IMSC-HRM CR1 Exit Criteria w3c/imsc-hrm#56 (Draft Pull Request)

   <Github> [12]https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/56 : CR1 exit
   criteria

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/56

   github: [13]https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/56

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/56

   Nigel: Last time we looked at this 28 days ago we said to
  proceed, and TTWG to continue to review.
   … No commits since then.

   Atsushi: Now we have agreement on the charter, I propose we
   describe how the criteria meet the new
   … charter requirements.
   … We had a bunch of discussions and objections on this area so
   I believe it might be better
   … to describe more logically step by step how the charter
   requirements lead to these exit criteria.
   … Otherwise we may have a similar discussion during CR
   transition request.
   … And when we do final AC review to go from PR to Rec.

   Nigel: I think with the charter wording I'd make a couple of
   changes.
   … I'll do them as suggestions.
   … First: implementation -> validating implementation
   … Second, use the "Content Implementation" wording from the
   charter.

   Pierre: Yes, use the charter language

   Nigel: The rest looks fine to me, and I appreciate the start on
   tests.
   … I think we need to create an Implementation Report and link
   to it from the CR.

   Atsushi: Yes, before the transition request it might be better
   to include the link in Respec metadata config.
   … (I may be getting Respec and Bikeshed mixed up)

   <atsushi> [14]https://respec.org/docs/#implementationReportURI

     [14] https://respec.org/docs/#implementationReportURI

   Nigel: Either way we need to make sure it is in the document.

   Atsushi: Pub Rule checks are getting stricter checking all
  required items.
   … Some past publications are now failing for other WGs!

   Pierre: My main question is who will draft the IR?
   … The Exit Criteria go into the spec.
   … Do you want me to do it, and if so, where?

   Nigel: In the past we've always put the IRs into the TTWG wiki.

   Pierre: Correct. I'm happy to do it, there or somewhere else.

   Nigel: Yes please.

   Pierre: Where would you like the stub IR to be?

   Nigel: I'll take an action to look up what we did and propose a
   location.

   Pierre: Thanks, and I'll wait for your comments on the proposed
   exit criteria.

   Nigel: Okay. Any more for any more on this topic?

   <atsushi> [15]https://w3c.github.io/imsc-hrm/spec/
   imsc-hrm.html?specStatus=CR

     [15] https://w3c.github.io/imsc-hrm/spec/imsc-hrm.html?specStatus=CR

   Atsushi: Testing current IMSC-HRM spec checklist using CR, it
   seems we need to define Implementation Experience
   … somewhere in the document.

   Nigel: That's new.

   Atsushi: We need to fix that in the pull request.

   Nigel: Make sense to you Pierre?

   Pierre: No.

   Nigel: The words "implementation experience" are being picked
   up by Respec and it wants a definition of them.

   Pierre: That points to the IR I think.

   Nigel: Ah, it may well do, makes sense.

   Pierre: Once we create the IR and put a link, it should fix
   that I think.

   Atsushi: That's the second error, the third one is asking for
   "implementation experience" to be defined.

   Gary: It does not need to be in this document, it could be in
   the IR.
   … Some place needs to define Implementation Experience.

   SUMMARY: Nigel to propose adjusted CR Exit Criteria wording and
   a location for an IR, Pierre to create an IR and a pull request
   to take the document to CR.

   Pierre: Thanks

  DAPT

   Nigel: We've been making good progress.
   … I don't think the agenda issues are actually ready for
   discussion.
   … I'll take the labels off them.

   Cyril: Yes we're not ready.
   … There's one issue marked Done awaiting Confirmation, based on
   issue 15, raised by Andreas.

   Nigel: He's not here.

   Cyril: My suggestion is to close the issue.

   Nigel: I'm reluctant: last time he was on a call we said we'd
   say when it's time to do a review,
   … and we haven't done that yet.

   Cyril: I want to see issues being closed, and I think this is
   done, so we should close and
   … when we think we're ready for FPWD ask for a review from the
   group.

   Nigel: I think the diagram (#86) will be enough to close this,
   so I'll do it then.

   Cyril: Sure, yes.

   Nigel: I've linked #15 to #86.

   Nigel: Anything else to discuss in terms of issues or pull
   requests?

   Cyril: No I don't think so.
   … We'll need one or two registries.
   … In general, how does the group feel about reviewing when we
   think it is stable?
   … What should be the process. Keep editing until we think it's
   good enough for FPWD?

   Nigel: Yes, I think that is what we said before and it still
   makes sense.
   … Happy to be told otherwise!

   Cyril: It's difficult when there's so much change.
   … I think we're getting pretty close - most of the issues are
   non-technical.
   … It's looking more editorial and we're converging rapidly.

   Nigel: It seems that way, yes.
   … I did notice that PR preview has stopped working properly.

   Atsushi: I didn't notice that.

   Nigel: The problem is that inline inclusions via Respec are
   appearing as error messages.

   Cyril: It works in the main branch and locally, but not in PR
   Preview.

   [16]For example

     [16] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/dapt/pull/81.html

   Cyril: See Example 1

   Atsushi: Oh, this is an issue I've seen before, where images
   don't appear in PR Preview.
   … It just takes the specified file without any other asset in
   the repository and will output the document
   … using the local browser instance. This is what we may expect
   using PR Preview.

   Nigel: I feel that this has broken recently, I may be wrong.

   Atsushi: I believe there was no time that external assets
   worked using PR Preview.

   Nigel: Ah, it's a real shame.

   Atsushi: Sorry for that, it should happen for images also.

   Nigel: Yes, I can confirm that with [17]https://
   pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/dapt/pull/86.html#data-model
   … OK, it's not stopping us but is making life a bit harder.

     [17] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/dapt/pull/86.html#data-model

   Atsushi: Do you assume any specific date for FPWD publication,
   since it is nearly the end of the year
   … and the latest publication date within this year will be 22nd
   Dec, in 2 weeks.
   … If you want to publish this year we need to take some
   immediate action.

   Nigel: I don't think we'll be ready this year. It will have to
   be next year.

   Cyril: I agree. When will the publication pipeline reopen?

   Atsushi: Theoretically, 1st January but 2 items to consider.
   … One, when TR approval pipeline will start after new year,
   … and Two what will happen from FO Council and rechartering.

   Cyril: OK, no issue with not publishing this year.

   Nigel: Agreed.

   Atsushi: Just for comment, W3C Process now has a Registry track
   we can use.

   Nigel: That's right, and there's a formal step for proposing
   how to manage the Registry, and I need
   … to write a proposal for that.

  Meeting close

   Nigel: We've completed our agenda, just at the meeting end
   time.
   … Thanks everyone. See you in 2 weeks.
   … [adjourns meeting]

Summary of resolutions

    1. [18]Merge the pull request and Chair(s) to email team and
       FO Council Chair with status update.


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [19]scribe.perl version 196 (Thu Oct 27 17:06:44 2022 UTC).

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