{Minutes} TTWG Teleconference 2023-02-02

Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG teleconference. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2023/02/02-tt-minutes.html


We discussed:

  *   Charter status: we currently have an active charter
  *   Registry boilerplate: next step is for Nigel to begin drafting

Those minutes in text format:

   [1]W3C

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


                Timed Text Working Group Teleconference

02 February 2023

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

      [2] https://www.w3.org/2023/01/19-tt-minutes.html

      [3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/238

      [4] https://www.w3.org/2023/02/02-tt-irc


Attendees

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

   Regrets
          None

   Chair
          Gary, Nigel

   Scribe
          nigel

Contents

    1. [5]This meeting
    2. [6]Charter Status
    3. [7]IMSC-HRM PR: Define presentation compositor #61
    4. [8]Defining a Registry w3c/ttwg#241
    5. [9]Meeting close

Meeting minutes

  This meeting

   Nigel: Today we have Charter status, and Registry boilerplate
   … Is there any other business?

   Pierre: There's an IMSC-HRM issue that we need to discuss - can
   we close?

   Nigel: Ok we can do that

   Pierre: It's #61 in imsc-hrm

  Charter Status

   Nigel: We have an active Charter again, after another extension
   was granted.

   [10]TTWG Charters

     [10] https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/timed-text/charters


   Nigel: As discussed last time with Philippe, the Charter
   objection has been reverted to the FO Council.

   Gary: I also saw that Tess responded in the charter review
   thread.

   Pierre: Did you see the response from the TAG too?

   Nigel: I don't recall seeing it. Was it recent?

   Pierre: 2-3 weeks ago.

   Nigel: Amy posted an update (member-only)

   [11]Amy email to AC 25th Jan

     [11] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2023JanMar/0077.html


   [12]Response to Philippe from Tess (member only)

     [12] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-charters-review/2023Jan/0017.html


   Pierre: There's a longer email from Mozilla by the way

   Nigel: Yes, I saw and responded to that.

   Nigel: Anyway, this is now back with the FO Council.

   Gary: We haven't heard anything else about the FO Council since
   Amy's email?

   Nigel: I haven't, no.

   Gary: I guess we wait then.

   Nigel: Yes!

   Pierre: You'll see that the TAG review asked the question again
   whether or not IMSC-HRM should be a Note.

   Nigel: Ok I'll have to dig that out.
   … Is that a review of IMSC-HRM or of the Charter?

  Pierre: It's a review of IMSC-HRM from Amy on Jan 9.

   [13]Comment from Amy on Jan 9

     [13] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/788#issuecomment-1376192275


   Nigel: Thank you for pointing this out, I didn't notice it. I
   will look at it and respond.
   … Anything else on Charter status?

  IMSC-HRM PR: Define presentation compositor #61

   github: [14]w3c/imsc-hrm#61

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/imsc-hrm/pull/61


   Nigel: In the context of the previous discussion, it may be
   that Amy is waiting for
   … an answer to the TAG review comment's questions before coming
   back on this.
   … I think we need to leave it as is until we've responded.

   Pierre: Arguably this is completely editorial, so we should
   merge.

   Nigel: It may be - let me try to unblock this by talking,
   first.

   Pierre: alright

   SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to talk to/ping @rhiaro to unblock this.

  Defining a Registry [15]w3c/ttwg#241

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/241


   [16]GitHub Discussion

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/discussions/241


   Nigel: Thanks to all who looked at this and chipped in over the
   past 2 weeks.
   … It feels as though we're approaching consensus
   … To summarise:
   … I opened an issue on the Process about fallback custodianship
   and I think the Process CG recognised that it was an omission.
   … Gary discovered how to do Registry Track in Respec.

   Gary: I haven't tried it

   Nigel: I have faith

   Atsushi: I believe it should work

   Nigel: We can draft boilerplate text in TTWG repo
   … There seems to be general agreement about the assumptions and
   the strawman
   … Gary and Nigel discussed provisional entries and deprecation
   and came up with a basic flow
   … Provisional -> Final -> Deprecated or something similar

   Gary: I haven't come up with anything better since.

   Nigel: Me neither.

   Gary: Might be good enough

   Nigel: Yes
   … There was an interesting question about TTML Profile
   Registry.
   … I did a comparative analysis and concluded that migrating it
   would probably be a Good Thing.
   … though the co-editor (Mike) doesn't want to spend the time
   doing it himself!
   … We gathered examples of some other Registries which I haven't
   looked at in any detail.
   … And, er, that's it.
   … Let's open the floor in case there are comments/questions.
   …
   … The first question:
   … Do we have enough alignment/agreement to begin drafting
   boilerplate text, e.g. in the ttwg repository?

   Nigel: Or put another way, does anyone see any unresolved
   problems with the current straw man?

   Cyril: I need to catch up on this - can I have some time to
   look at it offline?

   Nigel: Yes of course

   Cyril: I presume the Process has some requirements?

   Nigel: Yes, this is a proposal for boilerplate text for TTWG
   repositories to meet those requirements.

   Cyril: Would the DAPT registry be first for this proposal, or
   the TTML Profile Registry?

   Nigel: Either or both - I haven't decided, but if we need a
   DAPT Registry track registry then that could be the first one.

   Cyril: And we can do this with the Charter extension?

   Nigel: Yes I think so.

   Cyril: It looks good what you have, nothing controversial that
   I see.

   Nigel: Thanks. Before he (just) left Gary sent a message on IRC
   "gotta drop off in a minute. I don't have any objections"
   … My next agenda question was "Should we begin porting any
   existing registries to the Registry track?"
   … but that's the wrong question.
   … Instead, I think the next stage is to begin drafting the
   boilerplate text so we have something concrete
   … to review instead of this discussion straw man.
   … Should I take an action to draft something for review next
   call?

   <atsushi> +1 for drafting ;)

   Andreas: I haven't had much time to look at it but my proposal
   would also be to continue.

   Nigel: Okay, I will go ahead and draft something.
   … I've just opened [17]w3c/ttwg#242 and assigned it to myself,
   to track this.

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/242


   Nigel: Any other thoughts about Registries?

   group: [no more thoughts]

  Meeting close

   Nigel: Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    [18]scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).

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