{Minutes} TTWG Extraordinary meeting 2022-10-06

Thanks all for attending today’s Extraordinary TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-tt-minutes.html

In text:

   [1]W3C

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

                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

06 October 2022

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2022/09/29-tt-minutes.html
      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/231
      [4] https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-tt-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Atsushi, Chris_Needham, Gary, Mike_Dolan,
          Nigel, Pierre

   Regrets
          -

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          cpn, nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]Response to team's charter FO report
    3. [7]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Volunteers to scribe?

   Chris: Me!

   Nigel: One agenda item today, thanks for joining. Response to
   the team report from Atsushi for the FO Council experiment on
   our charter update
   … Anything else?

   (nothing)

  Response to team's charter FO report

   Nigel: You should all have a link to the report

   [8]FO Council report

      [8] https://www.w3.org/2022/09/ttwg-charter-fo-report.html

   Nigel: Atsushi, you sent a call for comment. The two parties
   who can comment, according to the draft process, are the
   deciders and the objectors
   … We are the deciders, we've been given a week to respond.
   … There's a decision review period of 2 weeks, 10 working days
   … I don't think we can sensibly respond as a WG with the Chairs
   assessing WG consensus to have a WG decision to respond with
   any particular text
   … That's the first problem
   … My proposal to deal with that is for Gary and I to send a
   Chairs' response
   … I'd like to share our draft response with you in this call,
   and get to a point where Gary and I are happy, and that's the
   basis of what we'd send
   … Does that make sense from a procedural point of view?

   Andreas: Are you looking for consensus on the draft?

   Nigel: Yes, purpose here is to assess some level of consensus
   without going through the full decision review period
   … [shares screen with draft text]
   … I'll go through and please comment
   … The first is the note on procedure, to make a Chairs'
   response rather than a TTWG consensus, but we will try to get
   consensus in this meeting

   Pierre: I'd suggest a few tweaks here
   … [edited to update]

   Nigel: Three categories: substantive comments, editorial
   comments, and process observations for the FO Council
   experiment

   Nigel: You're in a strange position, as the one who wrote the
   report. Please comment as a WG member

   Atsushi: I sent a message on behalf of the team, it's the
   team's report, not my report

   Nigel: That's possibly not clear enough

   Pierre: So clarify the document was shared by the team

   Atsushi: It was shared after team review, so it's the team's
   report

   Gary: The provenance of the document can get confusing, who
   drafted it

   Pierre: The author isn't TTWG, it's shared on behalf of the
   team by its editor

   Nigel: But Atsushi is a WG member, as well as on the team

   Pierre: I see, that wasn't clear in the draft

   Atsushi: On that point, I somehow feel the team report should
   be consistent in two parts: a totally independent report,
   recorded history, and some comment from the team/team contact
   closely related to the WG
   … So I'm confused by the overall configuration of this document
   actually

   Nigel: It's difficult for all of us

   Nigel: The substantive comments. The procedural history section
   should contain the background to the decision, including
   timeline, and missed opportunities to comment
   … This is mentioned in the report, but I'm asking to make it
   clear in the timeline
   … The procedural history should describe the attempts to
   resolve. I was advised by Philippe on a call that we didn't
   need to address Mozilla's comments
   … So now, it's a matter of importance. Presenting that email as
   a FO casts us in a more negative light than we think is
   reasonable

   Pierre: I feel Mozilla hasn't tried to reach out to us

   Nigel: They haven't, but the onus is on us

   Andreas: So should the Mozilla objection shouldn't be part of
   the team report

   Nigel: It's important to capture, but there's no explanation
   about why we didn't do anything with it

   Andreas: By the process though, it isn't a FO

   Gary: Philippe mentioned at the last meeting, is a benefit of
   Mozilla FO is that they'd be excluded from the council

   Nigel: The premise of Apple's and Mozilla's FO is false,
   because it's a requirement that doesn't exist
   … So it's a misuse of process to introduce such requirements,
   and the Council shouldn't entertain those objections
   … The final paragraph in the Analysis, the explanation omits
   important details
  … The HRM is already Rec Track text in 3 Recs
   … Important not to miss that out
   … Capture that Adobe's objection was resolved and that also
   resolved the MovieLabs objection

   Andreas: Google had a similar concern, proposed something that
   was adopted by the WG, and the objector was fine

   Nigel: What change are you asking for?

   Andreas: The text inline in the team report

   Nigel: Excellent point, I didn't observe that
   … Finally, our overall view is the spirit of the deleted SHOULD
   requirement is strengthened

   Nigel: Any comments?

   Atsushi: Could you include a link on the resolved objections?

   Nigel: Will do, yes

   Nigel: Editorial suggestions. Firstly, it would be easier to
   understand if there were just a single timeline presented
   … Another minor one, is the group itself is referred to in 3
   different ways. And include a link to TTWG participants too
   … There's wording in the report that reads strangely, "one idea
   to revise the charter". Change to say it was a WG decision

   Nigel: The last section is two process related observations
   … The team's views here are unclear. Atsushi, because you're a
  TTWG member, our understanding is you share the group's views
   … It's helpful to clarify who's views are being expressed. It
   also causes tensions between team and WG

   Gary: This stood out to me, but I didn't have an idea to
   improve it

   Pierre: I'd consider striking some of the text. Not sure we
   should put Atsushi in a difficult position

   Nigel: Happy to delete it

   Gary: Yes

   Andreas: I ask what Atsushi thinks. I wonder if this should be
   mixed up with the other parts. I also am not sure if the
   coordinator is part of the consensus of the WG

   Nigel: The team member role in W3C may be different to how it
   works in other SDOs

   Nigel: That's everything

   Andreas: The concern is this type of FOs that try to change
   Process through raising FOs
   … It's a general concern, not about singling out individual
   companies

   Nigel: Any other comments?

   (none)

   Nigel: Thank you all for going through this.
   … I'll add the links, then respond to the call for comments on
   behalf of me and Gary

   Gary: That's OK

   Nigel: Anything else to discuss?

   (nothing)

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thank you all, let's adjourn

   Nigel: [adjourns meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [9]scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).

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