{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2022-09-01

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2022/09/01-tt-minutes.html


We made 1 resolution<https://www.w3.org/2022/09/01-tt-minutes.html#r01>:

RESOLUTION: The Editors of DAPT can merge changes to the current ED prior to FPWD without waiting for the usual 2 week review.

The review period for this resolution, under our Decision Policy, will expire on 2022-09-15. If you have any objections to this please respond before then, and ideally before 2022-09-13 when the Editors expect to make some substantial changes to DAPT.

Those minutes in text format:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

01 September 2022

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2022/08/18-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/225

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2022/09/01-tt-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Andreas, Atsushi, Cyril, Gary, Hew, Nigel, Pierre

   Regrets
         -

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]Rechartering status update
    3. [7]TPAC planning
    4. [8]AOB - SDO Coordination meeting on accessibility settings
       and signalling
    5. [9]Meeting close
    6. [10]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Today we have TPAC schedule finalisation, FO Council
   preparation for the Charter Formal Objection,
   … DAPT if we can, - anything else?

   Pierre: Request FO Council prep first because I have to leave
   before the end of the call

   Nigel: OK. Anything else?

   No other business

   Andreas: AOB item - the SDO meeting that Nigel, Gary and Pierre
   attended, if you think it's useful

   Nigel: Good point, I did report on behalf of this group in
   effect.

  Rechartering status update

   Nigel: My understanding is that Atsushi is preparing materials
   to support the new FO Council process
   … that is being run in an experimental way.

   Atsushi: The current process notes that Team should prepare a
   document about the timeline
   … and objection with analysis of the situation
   … and once the Team has reviewed that document it will be
   provided to both parties,
   … the Objector and the Group, to get comments.
   … Then it will be brought up to the FO Council.
   … For now, I am drafting a document to be presented to W3 Team.

   Nigel: Thank you. Are there any questions you have for us?

   Atsushi: My current direction to draft the document analysis is
   to present that the exception
   … only is needed for the IMSC-HRM but the WG is willing to
   follow the normal 2 independent implementations
   … approach for the other Rec track documents.
   … If the WG brings the current draft Charter to the FO Council
   there is nothing about such limitation
   … and we do not state anything about validators having
   different requirements.
   … For now if we just bring the current situation the Team's
   question will be whether the WG will provide
   … some updated proposal to state IMSC-HRM is the only
   exception,
   … and also, if that direction will be taken, I need to write
   more detail about the situation related to IMSC-HRM
   … implementations and use cases.
   … If there is any other use case required by consuming
   organisation to use the existing IMSC-HRM library,
   … if we can provide that documentation then the document will
   be more complete.

   Nigel: Thank you, any questions for Atsushi?

   Pierre: I look forward to seeing the write-up.

   Nigel: Just to note that although the IMSC-HRM may have
   provided some motivation for the
   … proposed Charter changed wording, it was designed to
   accommodate all WG Rec track documents.
   … So far it has not been a proposal to make an exception for
   IMSC-HRM. I think that may be what you are
   … asking for Atsushi, or proposing?

   Atsushi: To be honest, my current draft analysis depends on
   making IMSC-HRM to be the only
   … exception from 2 independent implementations, so if some
   updated proposed charter can be agreed
   … aligned with that, within the group, that might be a good
   thing to bring to the FO Council.
   … If the WG cannot agree with that direction I need to rethink
   my analysis.

   Pierre: When will the draft document be available?

   Atsushi: The process is to get material from the group, review
   with the team, then share the output.

   Nigel: I think the question was about a date.

   Atsushi: Depends when I can get material from the group.

   Pierre: What is the exact material?

   Atsushi: The use cases for IMSC-HRM are needed to complete the
   document.
   … TTWG is stating only one OS implementation is widely used,
   but I couldn't show any use case
   … for that currently. If there's any use case I can include
   that helps.

   Andreas: Just referring to the proposal from Atsushi or the
   reference to a change in the Charter
   … to make the IMSC-HRM the only document that would be an
   exception from the 2 implementation rule,
   … we discussed this option in a previous meeting and some of
   the members have commented that this
   … could be a possible compromise but there was no agreement to
   go forward and redraft the Charter
   … in that way. At that time the idea was to make it a proposal
   to the Objector.
   … We discussed that at another meeting and there were members
  that said the Objector would be
   … unwilling to accept this, but there was no further action.

   Nigel: Mine too, and further, my recollection from discussion
   with the Objector is that they would
   … simply remove IMSC-HRM from the Charter in that case.

   Atsushi: FO Council can remove any objection from the Objector
   if they decide. They will decide
   … on behalf of the Director so it is formally known as a
   Director Decision, so even if the Objector
   … is still objecting to the direction, Council can overrule
   that.
   … And Council is formed to make a final decision on any formal
   objection.
   … In other words, if FO Council decides to force the WG to
   accept the objection then
   … we need to do so.
   … So it is a single stage court that makes the final decision.

   Pierre: The statement is that only one open source
   implementation is necessary
   … and that it is likely that there will be only one because
   there is no need by industry for more
   … Atsushi I am going to send you an email with some specific
   questions that will need a formal
   … answer because there is some misunderstanding here.
   … But when will the FO Council meet? We need a date of some
   kind, otherwise it will be never.

   Atsushi: The process is still being developed. I believe for us
   it depends on when the Team
   … can finalise the document for them.

   <Zakim> nigel, you wanted to ask why intent to use is now part
   of the consideration

   Nigel: So you are asking for more information about intended
   usage?

   Atsushi: For example that some named companies are requiring
   that the documents they receive meet the requirements of the
   HRM.

   <pal> +1 to Nigel

   Nigel: So far in TTWG there has never been any requirement to
   demonstrate intent to use specifications.
   … If you are telling us now that this is needed, that is a
   major change that we should have had notification of.

   Atsushi: The Council needs to understand the use case for the
   IMSC-HRM.

   Pierre: If the Process said that you must have two independent
   implementations then we would not be having
   … this discussion. The Process requires implementation
   experience.

   Atsushi: Yes, it is a Should in the Process. That is the
   consideration for implementation experience.

   Pierre: We're reading different documents.

   [11]Implementation Experience in the Process

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#implementation-experience


   Pierre: Where does it say Should require two different
   implementations?
   … Implementation experience [quotes process]
   … No exhaustive list, ... the Director will consider ... -
   nowhere does it say must or should have
   … two independent implementations. It is not a requirement. If
   it were a requirement we would not have
   … this discussion. Apple thinks it is a requirement, but it is
   not.

   Gary: They want it to be a requirement. That is the root of
   this discussion.
   … They want it to go through the Charter.

   Atsushi: This is why the FO Council is under discussion.

   Pierre: I would not argue on the popularity of the HRM, but
   that it is not a requirement.

   [unminuted conversation]

   Andreas: I'm sure that with offline working with members of the
   group it is possible to prepare a document
   … that reflects the position of the group.
   … Regarding the Process and if it is in there or not, Pierre
   read a section. One of the bullet points for
   … the Director to consider is if there are interoperable
   independent implementations. That plural
   … implies minimum 2. I'm not sure how to interpret this bullet
   point but that is there at least.

   <pal> atai: it is one of many considerations

   Nigel: I support Andreas's suggestion that we take this offline
   - by the way there has already been
   … offline discussion and we should continue that.

   Cyril: I just want to report that I started using the IMSC-HRM
   open source implementation to
   … validate Netflix produced content. Some of them passed, some
   failed, so we're working on the details
   … with Pierre. In particular it's interesting because the same
   conversations are happening in different threads.
   … There is a LinkedIn thread from YellaUmbrella about the time
   gap between two subtitles. This is actually
   … the issue we have with the IMSC-HRM. The failures being
   reported are because that gap is too small.
   … I just wanted to report that we are starting to use it, if
   that can be of help.

   Andreas: One last point that we should not forget is that
   software that produces content that should
   … meet the requirements of the HRM should also be considered an
   independent implementation. Just
   … something from last time.

   Nigel: Yes, if it is designed with meeting the HRM constraints
   as part of the functionality.

  TPAC planning

   Nigel: Our next meeting will be at TPAC, on Thursday 15th, at
   the TPAC time, not the usual time.

   <gkatsev> [12]synchronization requirements (SAUR)

     [12] https://www.w3.org/TR/saur/


   Nigel: No agenda changes since last time, but there is an
   additional joint meeting, thanks to a reminder
   … from Janina, with APA WG who want to discuss SAUR. Proposal
   is 14:30-15:30 on Thursday of TPAC.
   … I'll confirm that if there are no objections?

   No objections

   Nigel: Hearing nothing, I will confirm.
   … Anything else anyone wants to raise for TPAC?
   … Gary, have we sent the team the details they need?

   Gary: I think so, I've just updated the calendar entries. I
   didn't see a form, for example.

   Nigel: Thank you, I feel like there was some 1st September
   requirement, need to check.

   Cyril: Just to double check something with the group re DAPT at
   TPAC.
   … Last time we said that you and I and maybe others could meet
   on Tuesday to do an editing session
   … and try to close as many issues as possible. Obviously there
   won't be time for people to review on Thursday
   … changes on Tuesday. Does anyone have any issue with aiming
   for a FPWD as soon as possible after that?
   … My plan is to close as many issues as possible before the
   meeting and then get document review and
   … ask for consensus for FPWD.

   Nigel: I'd support that.
   … I think if we're doing a big step change in the document,
   then rather than asking the group to review
   … a bunch of pull requests I think it would make sense for us
   to edit together a new editor's draft and
   … seek FPWD consensus on that.
   … I'm proposing a streamlined process to get to FPWD.

   Cyril: No objection to that.

   Nigel: I'm going to make a formal proposal.

   Cyril: We will go through the regular consensus period to ask
   for FPWD, right?

   Nigel: Yes

   PROPOSAL: The Editors of DAPT can merge changes to the current
   ED prior to FPWD without waiting for the usual 2 week review.

   Nigel: Any objections?

   No objections

   Nigel: Hearing none, I'll make it a resolution, and the 2 week
   decision review period will apply!

   RESOLUTION: The Editors of DAPT can merge changes to the
   current ED prior to FPWD without waiting for the usual 2 week
   review.

   Nigel: Any more on DAPT?

  AOB - SDO Coordination meeting on accessibility settings and
  signalling

   Nigel: On August 22nd, I attended a multi-SDO coordination
   meeting, partially organised by Andreas,
   … with Gary and Pierre also present, where the topic of user
   accessibility settings and signalling was
   … discussed. I explained the role of TTWG in defining document
   formats.
   … Those attending were CTA, DVB, HbbTV, EBU, ITU and W3C.

   Andreas: In summary, there is ongoing work by different
   organisations with some overlap, and the
   … question is how it can be harmonised or coordinated.

   Nigel: Just to fill in an obvious question/gap: this seems to
   be about users being able to capture their
   … accessibility preferences in a portable way that can be used
   by different applications and services.

   Andreas: Exactly.

   Gary: Should we bring in the APA? It sounds like what they
   focus on as well.
   … Maybe down the line.

   Nigel: I have proposed a breakout session at TPAC about this,
   and architectures that can satisfy the needs of
   … users, platform providers and content providers. In my view
   this is really complicated!

   [13]Breakout session proposed by Nigel

     [13] https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2022/SessionIdeas#Architecting_for_Privacy.2C_Media_Accessibility_and_Product_development:_the_video_element


  Meeting close

   Nigel: We're slightly over time. Thanks everyone. [adjourns
   meeting]

Summary of resolutions

    1. [14]The Editors of DAPT can merge changes to the current ED
       prior to FPWD without waiting for the usual 2 week review.


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

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