- From: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 17:46:16 +0000
- To: TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BC796C2C-EB58-4FCD-9DA9-2B4596DF808A@bbc.co.uk>
Thanks all for attending today’s TTWG meeting. Minutes can be found in HTML format at https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-tt-minutes.html
In text format:
[1]W3C
[1] https://www.w3.org/
Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
02 March 2023
[2]Previous meeting. [3]Agenda. [4]IRC log.
[2] https://www.w3.org/2023/02/02-tt-minutes.html
[3] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/245
[4] https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-tt-irc
Attendees
Present
Andreas, Atsushi, Florian, Gary, Nigel, Pierre
Regrets
Cyril
Chair
Gary, Nigel
Scribe
nigel
Contents
1. [5]This meeting
2. [6]Charter status
3. [7]Defining a Registry #241 and #243
4. [8]IMSC-HRM
5. [9]AOB - DST
6. [10]Meeting close
Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Agenda for today is: Charter status, Defining a
Registry, and IMSC-HRM.
… One AOB is the upcoming DST changes.
… Any other points to raise?
group: none
Charter status
Nigel: Not sure if everyone has seen Amy's and Florian's emails
from earlier today/yesterday.
… Thank you Florian for joining us.
Florian: We (the Council) knows this has been taking longer
than expected.
… Various reasons. One consequence is we entered a time when
Amy has diminished availability,
… which didn't help.
… The AB and the Process CG have recently introduced a new
provision to the Process
… allowing a change of Chair in a Council, which has enabled
Amy
… to recognise that they did not have the time, and to pass it
on, namely to me.
… This what happened recently.
… You discovered I was a Chair roughly the same time as I did!
… I haven't been in the role for 24 hours yet.
… Another thing that unfortunately took a while, and, having
read your WG minutes,
… I'm unsure how clearly the situation was explained.
… Hopefully a repetition of things you already know.
… The Council has one power, which is, after being sufficiently
informed,
… decide if the FO stands, or if they don't, in which case we
overrule them and the Decision goes forward.
… That's the only thing we have the power to do.
… However while listening to everyone, we can observe
opportunities for consensus,
… which is what we tried to do. We thought that some possibly
ambiguous text can
… be adjusted if all parties agree.
… If that happens, the objection disappears and there's no role
for the Council, which disbands.
… If you and the objectors fail to reach consensus then we're
back to where we are.
… We thought we had an idea, you responded quickly, then it
took time to get a response
… from the objectors. Possibly we should not have waited that
long before
… observing that we have not reached consensus, and done what
we're about to do.
… The Council knows that you're waiting.
… There's another part of what we're doing to prevent what
happened this time or to future Councils.
… We are including the Council's team contact within the
Council directly.
… It was designed for the Council to work in closed session
with public conclusions.
… Initially the team contact was not included, so there was
nobody other than ourselves to tell us when we were not
… doing the right things, or doing things in time.
… The follow-up actions with the objectors did happen, but
might have happened faster.
… The process has now been modified, so I would expect us to be
more reactive in future.
… I believe another thing that made you wait is that the
Council started on Nov 3rd, and at that
… point you had already been waiting quite a while.
… The Process was clear about what needed to happen, but it is
high level.
… It does not include operational details, like who should send
what email to whom.
… It is not yet publicly documented but the Team has a private
checklist which will be published on /Guide.
… They did not have that when this started.
… This also happened while W3C was trying to setup a Board of
Directors and a Legal Entity which made the Team busier.
… So there were unusual bottlenecks that shouldn't occur in the
future.
… I want to apologise on behalf of the Council for the time it
has taken.
… We know timeliness is important.
… I am hopeful that within a couple of weeks we should be able
to get back to you and the community
… with a decision. That's where we are. The status is that the
suggestion we made did not lead to
… consensus, so we're where we are but with some additional
information.
Nigel: Thank you.
Pierre: Quick question. Thanks for the summary.
… What is the new information that you just mentioned?
… If there's new information then the TTWG and other proponents
might wish to respond.
Florian: It's the notes from your session and the comments from
the objectors in response to the changes you proposed to
accept.
… I can't comment on what the Council members will think of it.
… The additional interaction might influence what people think,
potentially.
Pierre: It would be useful to know what new information will be
considered by the Council.
… Going in, we knew what information had been submitted.
… Is it possible to get a list of the information that's new
and relevant.
Florian: The minutes of this WG;
<florian> [11]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/
member-charters-review/2023Jan/0017.html
[11] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-charters-review/2023Jan/0017.html
Florian: the responses from the objectors to the changes you
proposed. (see above)
<florian> [12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/
member-charters-review/2023Jan/0014.html
[12] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-charters-review/2023Jan/0014.html
Florian: Also ^ if you have access. It's member only. I can't
change access levels.
Pierre: Thank you
Florian: Whether this is material or not will depend on the
Council members' judgement.
Pierre: Usually when a group makes a decision it's important to
know all the input information.
… This group put a lot of effort into crafting input into the
council.
… When is the deadline for providing updated information?
Florian: The Council as convened Nov 3 has a deadline of 45
days to solve it or explain why it isn't solved.
… Amy provided an update in January, and they and I provided
another update today.
… That's a requirement, when we're slow we need to tell you
why.
Pierre: I don't know if we want to update the group's input
based on that response from Tantek.
… Tess just says they don't agree, but Tantek provides
additional information.
… I don't know if we want to review the input provided.
Florian: I would encourage you to say if you have any new
response to Tantek.
… If you tell me now I'll convey as best I can. Or tell me
later and point me to it.
Pierre: That's why I wanted to know when you plan to meet next.
… I doubt it will change the input significantly but it might
provide additional context.
Florian: We're back to the original report based on the lack of
consensus coming from the first response.
… I don't think the new information is especially informative.
… If you do want to clarify anything, that's always welcome.
… I don't think you want us to stop and wait.
… I expect us to meet early next week. Pencilled in, trying to
confirm.
<florian> There seems to be some confusion as to exactly what
text the council suggested. The suggest text is in [13]https://
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2022Nov/0008.html
[13] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2022Nov/0008.html
Nigel: Discrepancy between the written proposal and what we
ended up doing
… based on conversation in our meeting. Looking for clarity in
any further proposals so we have
… more certainty.
Florian: I understand.
Nigel: Other question: you mentioned Tantek. It's unclear to us
whether Tantek / Mozilla's objection
… needs to be resolved based on the timing of its submission.
Florian: As a process reader / editor, my reading is that
anybody can object to any decision any time.
… There are well guided times for doing so, but there are no
limitations to the timing.
… If an objection happens after a decision has already been
applied, you're talking about undoing something rather than
doing
… something different. It is preferable to talk early rather
than later.
… Given that Mozilla talked before the Charter was approved, we
have to take notice of it.
… It still holds as an objection, is my personal take on the
Process.
Nigel: You may know that we did not discuss with Mozilla
because we were guided that it did not hold.
Florian: I did notice that in the report, and that's
unfortunate.
… This makes me think that maybe a Process consultancy CG for
answering interpretation questions
… about the Process could be helpful.
… I would say in general feedback from everyone always needs to
be addressed.
… The less specific and later, the less you need to worry about
it, but even then issues need to be addressed.
Pierre: Just reading Tantek's reply to the member charter
review,
… I want to make sure of, and I think it's clear in the Team
Report,
… Tantek, I think consistently, indicates that he's very
concerned that there
… would be an attempt to proceed to Rec with solely a single
open source implementation.
… I think it's clear that's not the TTWG plan.
… The plan is at least one validator but also content produced
by a number of other independent parties.
Nigel: IMSC-HRM specifically?
Pierre: Yes correct.
Florian: I think that point has been conveyed.
… What may be less clear (speaking for myself) is if you have a
validator
… and an open source implementation or several validators or
several pieces of content which of
… these factors do you intend to apply to what sort of things.
[thinks]
… I think it's a different situation. A "silly" example out of
context.
… Imagine we're talking about a hypothetical variant of HTML,
that requires authors to write document so that that every
image
… element contains a descendant element with an alternate text.
… Then authors could not write a conformant document because no
child of image is permitted.
… They would have to use an attribute insteda.
… You would have to have an authoring requirement that you
demonstrate to be implementable.
… It is a different situation to have a consuming and a
producing implementation exchanging
… content but only having a single one of each.
… I don't want to say what is acceptable, just that these are
two different situations
… and I'm not clear which one of these you intend.
Pierre: My personal plan with IMSC-HRM, which I think is in the
Team Report....
… IMSC-HRM is a content spec, and the document has been updated
to make it clear.
… The plan that we have is to get content from multiple
independent sources, to use your example,
… that these sources believe are valid and conformant, and
confirm that their expectations are correct.
… - according to the model in the specification, using the open
source tool to make that determination.
Florian: The success criteria of the Charter apply to all of
the deliverables.
… Some of the deliverables include a rendering model. If you're
talking about
… specification requirements that only talk about exchanging
data, then I suppose a producer and
… a consumer are two implementations, but they are not two
implementations of rendering data.
Pierre: Correct. Just to roll back the clock, in my mind the
reason the wording in the proposed Charter
… was crafted was to give TTWG the flexibility to pick the exit
criteria that best match the type of specification,
… because TTWG has different types. I don't think the plan is
to change the criteria for specs that are
… for instance renderer specs, or have a defined presentation
engine.
… Again, going back in time, the motivation for the flexible
language in the Charter, while staying
… in the spirit of the process, was to give exit criteria that
match the needs of the spec.
Florian: What sounds like a good idea to the Council, and the
objectors may be different, the Council previously thought
… that the previous proposal would give enough flexibility.
… Different requirements for different kinds of specification.
You'd be able to pick any two that
… corresponded to that requirement.
Pierre: That's exactly the spirit of how the TTWG charter was
crafted. precisely for that flexibility,
… not to avoid having to demonstrate interop.
Nigel: Yes
Florian: So far the Council has not come up with any
determination in either direction.
Pierre: Florian. what you just said a few seconds ago, if you
feel this is well understood within the council,
… I don't think further input is needed.
Florian: A meta-question: do you immediately publish minutes?
Nigel: Yes, usually soon after the meeting.
Florian: I'll review the log straight after then.
Nigel: Thank you
Andreas: Going back to your comment Florian that you understood
that one word made the difference
… to the Objector. I'm not sure if I'm too simplistic, but if
for the group this word didn't make the
… difference then the logical conclusion is that inserting the
word would be acceptable for that objector?
Florian: I believe Tess has indicated that inserting that word
would have been okay for Apple, but not that
… it would be okay for Mozilla.
Andreas: Could we say this is possible, so that we would
satisfy at least one objector?
Nigel: I think we didn't quite understand it, actually.
… We didn't understand how content could be produced without a
content producing implementation.
Gary: I think implementation by itself disambiguates it from
just a person writing content.
… I think the point was to exclude just a person creating the
content.
… I'm not sure what Tess thinks or meant, that's my
interpretation.
Nigel: When we discussed it we did consider these points. In
particular, for a content specification,
… content itself is the thing that is a factor of verification.
Florian: I believe you made that point. Thank you for remaking
these points, hopefully you've said them
… in a different way and the additional phrasing might bring
clarity to some people if they didn't have it before.
Nigel: Did I answer your question Andreas?
Andreas: I'm not sure - my question is if the WG could agree to
put the phrase in - do you think the answer is no?
Nigel: I think we said no before but if people want to accept
it now then we can reconsider.
Gary: I don't think we can know if the objectors would accept
it anyway.
… That ties in to the outcome of the Council: will it be
concrete?
Florian: Unless all objections go away then we still need to
decide if any objections are upheld.
… Unless you want to try to reach consensus, I think we should
go ahead in the Council.
Pierre: My attempts to discuss this and come to consensus have
been unsuccessful over the months.
Nigel: I think the Process should give the council greater
powers than uphold or reject - they should be
… able to say "This is how it's going to be".
Pierre: For a different group.
Florian: That's been discussed. If we find better ways,
suggestions are always welcome for
… improvements to the Process.
… The Council is not the Director, and the Director had many
more powers that he could use at any time.
… Including resolving FOs. If we want the Council to be able to
do more then we need to give it more powers.
… That's one of the differences compared to the Director.
Defining a Registry #241 and #243
Nigel: As discussed previously, I've drafted a boilerplate
Registry definition and
… opened a pull request, [14]w3c/ttwg#243 for review.
[14] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/243
<Github> [15]w3c/ttwg#243 : Draft boilerplate text
[15] https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/pull/243
Nigel: Thank you Atsushi for your comments.
… Please everyone else take a look and add your comments to the
PR.
… Any immediate questions about it?
group: none
IMSC-HRM
Nigel: Do any of the open issues on IMSC-HRM block FPWD?
Pierre: I think we were going to CR not FPWD.
Nigel: Sorry my mistake.
Pierre: We have a CR, and the action item is to craft a test
plan, which will depend
… to some extent on the result of the Council, including if
they cancel the entire project.
Pierre: The FPWD was published back in November 2021.
Nigel: OK, then any open issues that need to be resolved before
CR?
Pierre: There's one that's scheduled for CR1 milestone, which
is about references.
… The last on the thread is a suggestion from me to you in
December.
Nigel: Yes there's an action on me.
Pierre: None of the other issues are labelled CR.
… We did do a triage which resulted in your asking for the TAG
review.
Nigel: Yes, which hasn't concluded yet.
Pierre: I thought there was a suggestion to turn it into a
Note.
… I don't think there were technical comments.
Nigel: I don't think they did a technical review.
… The review issue is still open. I don't think they're done.
Pierre: As far as I know the only action item that's blocking
is creating a test plan.
<pal> Pierre: (we have a draft test plan available)
AOB - DST
Nigel: Given the time, suggest Chairs propose something offline
Gary: [nods]
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone, see you next time, hopefully at the
correct hour. [adjourns meeting]
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
[16]scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).
[16] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2023 17:46:39 UTC