[tvapi] minutes - 12 January 2016

Happy New Year, the group!

The minutes from our first call this year are available at:
 http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-tvapi-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking notes, Chris!

Kazuyuki

---

   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                           TV Control API CG

12 Jan 2016

   [2]Agenda

      [2]
https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/wiki/Main_Page/Agenda_Telco_Jan_12_2016

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/12-tvapi-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz, amereu, Bin, Chris, Colin, Francois, Hyojin, Sean,
          Igarashi, Adam

   Regrets
   Chair
          Bin Hu

   Scribe
          Chris

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]TV Control API CG
         2. [6]Working Group Charter
         3. [7]Transition plan from CG to WG
         4. [8]Potential implementations
         5. [9]Test contributions
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     * [11]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <kaz> scribe: Chris

   <kaz> scribenick: cpn

TV Control API CG

   Bin: recapping the agenda, any other suggestions?

   nothing

Working Group Charter

   <Bin_Hu>
   [12]http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html

     [12] http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html

   Bin: Has everybody had a chance to review the charter?
   ... Are there any other comments or suggestions?

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   cpn: multiple deliverables?
   ... TV Control API is the main one
   ... but possibly to have multiple delivelables as Francois
   suggested

   <inserted> scribenick: cpn

   Francois: I have just updated the draft charter
   ... to mention one or more deliverables

   <kaz> [13]delivelables section

     [13]
http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html#deliverables

   Chris: I think this is OK as it leaves the scope and decision
   open for discussion

   kaz: I also agree. Some WGs produce one report, some produce
   multiple notes, but the structure can be determined later

   Bin: If there are no more comments, I'd say we've achieved
   consensus on the draft charter
   ... The next step is for Francois to follow up with the AC

   Francois: Actually, the next thing is to go to W3C management,
   before going to AC review
   ... It's minuted that we have consensus
   ... If anyone disagrees with the consensus, now would be a good
   time to say so

   (no objections)

   RESOLUTION: We have consensus on the wording of the draft WG
   charter so that we will create a WG

Transition plan from CG to WG

   Bin: Once the WG charter is approved, the WG will be officially
   started
   ... And I'd encourage all CG members to join the WG
   ... We'll have the first joint meeting of the CG and WG, but
   there'll be a 3 month transition period
   ... During the joint meetings we'll discuss the WG structure,
   also the phase 2 work to improve the specification
   ... There'll be two tracks: the recommendation track and the
   phase 2 track, and members can decide where to contribute their
   efforts
   ... Looking at the current schedule, there's a meeting June
   28th, and we'll propose to close the CG on June 30th and
   continue work in the WG
   ... But we can keep the existing conference call schedule
   ... The times could be adjusted based on the progress of work

   Chris: At TPAC I think we discussed keeping the CG open to work
   on some of the phase 2 work, while the WG focuses on the
   specification

   Bin: That's possible, but will be driven by the needs of the
   members, I'm open to that option

   Kaz: I agree with both of you, and having two groups might make
   things complicated
   ... however, the automotive groups are structured with a WG and
   a BG. the WG works on specs, and the BG works on incubation
   kind of new work.

   Bin: I agree, if the focus of each group is clear this can be
   help
   ... So, we'll keep the CG open
   ... Thanks Chris for the suggestion

   RESOLUTION: We will keep the Community Group open while also
   creating the Working Group to proceed with the specification
   work

   Bin: Regarding logistics, we should find another time slot for
   the CG phone call

Potential implementations

   Bin: We'll need two independent implementations of the
   specification from the WG
   ... We have good representation now from implementers
   ... Will Mozilla, LG, and Sony be interested in working on
   implementations?

   <inserted> scribenick: tidoust

   Bin: Chris, do you expect an implementation on your side?

   Chris: That's a good question. It's unlikely you will see a
   complete implementation from us. We're not browser
   manufacturers.

   <inserted> scribenick: cpn

   Chris: But we may want to do some prototyping work. I'll have
   to discuss with my team here.

   Bin: Ok, maybe we can discuss this offline

   Hyojin: I'll will check with the TV division in my company and
   let you know a contact

   Francois: This is an important point that W3C management will
   review: that there are good implementation plans
   ... This is one of the criteria for the creation of a WG
   ... I'll need this information to go to W3C management, so will
   follow up privately if people don't want to say in public yet
   ... At this stage we just need to put forward a plan

   Igarashi: In terms of implementation, should this be in product
   or as a prototype?

   Francois: A prototype is fine, but all I need to know is that
   there's a plan to do it
   ... It doesn't have to be in product, just a plan to write
   concrete code that implements the spec
   ... If the community group can't show that there are potential
   implementers, the W3C management will see it as premature to
   move to standardisation

   Bin: As Francois has mentioned, to move forward with
   standardisation, having 2 implementations is a must
   ... So we have to have implementations to create the WG

   <inserted> scribenick: kaz

   Kaz: please note that the AC Review will also have a question
   on potential implementations. So it would be nicer to have
   active group participants who are interested in implementing
   the proposed spec.

   <scribe> scribenick: cpn

   Hyojin: What are the scope of the implementations?

   Bin: The implementation will need to cover the conformance
   class in the specification, and also be public

   <kaz> [14]Model CR Exit Criteria (by the HTML WG)

     [14]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html

   <tidoust> [I note that these exit criteria are those followed
   by the HTML WG. I think the Process document is less strict on
   the definition of what constitutes an implementation. These are
   good criteria though]

   <Bin_Hu>
   [15]http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-e
   xit-criteria.html

     [15]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html

   Igarashi: About the public availability, I think the TV Control
   API can't follow such a requirement, as it can't be implemented
   in a generic platform such as a PC or Android
   ... How can we demonstrate public availability?

   Bin: I'll try to draft some language
   ... If it's not possible for a TV platform to be made public
   ... We can clarify the stability, and define a life-cycle for
   the implementation, e.g., showing it publicly at some event or
   trade show

   Kaz: There are some basic descriptions in the process document,
   but the newly created WG can define criteria itself, so we can
   draft the text later when we go into the CR period

   Bin: It will be useful to help Igarashi and others to know the
   implementation criteria at this stage, to know what they're
   committing to

   Igarashi: I agree

   Francois: I'm not really asking for commitment, only that it's
   something you want to push for

   <kaz>[ kaz whispers that maybe we should say "expectation" at
   the moment. ]

   Kaz: I think Hyojin was also asking about the coverage of the
   implementation
   ... One implementation doesn't have to include all the features
   ... The features could be implemented across two or three
   implementations

   Bin: I'll draft something based on what we've just discussed

Test contributions

   Bin: I assume anyone doing implementation will also cover
   testing
   ... But if anyone else wants to contributes, please get in
   touch

   Kaz: We should think about using and contributing to the
   general W3C web platform testing effort

   Bin: We'll need a specific test platform suitable for TVs
   ... We can also discuss testing offline
   ... I encourage everyone to look at the proposed phase 2 work
   and discuss offline
   ... Thank you all

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [16]We have consensus on the wording of the draft WG
       charter so that we will create a WG
    2. [17]We will keep the Community Group open while also
       creating the Working Group to proceed with the
       specification work

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([19]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/01/12 15:55:24 $

     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/