RE: Working Group draft specification

Hi all,

I agree as well and second Francois' proposal. Maybe use "w3c/tvcontrol-api" as new repository name. It would make it clear that it's an API and help to discover it. E.g. when you enter "api" into the filter input box on w3c GitHub, it would show up with all the other APIs.

On the call Kaz convinced me that using a single tracker makes more sense and I agree with Chris that the GitHub issue tracker makes it easier to keep everything close together.

Best regards
Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org] 
Sent: Montag, 9. Mai 2016 15:37
To: 'Igarashi, Tatsuya' <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com>; 'Chris Needham' <chris.needham@bbc.co.uk>; public-tvapi@w3.org; public-tvcontrol@w3.org
Subject: RE: Working Group draft specification

Hi all,

I agree with Igarashi-san that, from an IPR policy perspective, we cannot (at least we should not) let both the CG and WG work on the same version of the specification. Question is: does anyone in the CG plan to continue CG work on the TV Control API specification itself?

My understanding is that the CG might want to discuss additional features that are not in scope of the Working Group. These additional features can probably be described in dedicated extension specifications, which would have the benefit of leaving the WG as the sole owner of the TV Control API specification.

Personally, I think having two forks of the spec being worked upon by two closely related groups is confusing. It also calls for divergences to appear. At best, it makes things more complex than they need to be (e.g. because of the need to keep the two forks in sync).

Looking at a similar example, when the Second Screen CG transitioned to a WG, the GitHub repository of the CG was transitioned to the WG, and the original CG repository now features a "We've moved" message, with a copy of the spec at the time when the transition occurred:
https://github.com/webscreens/presentation-api


The Second Screen CG was initially planning to work on extensions as well (this did not happen, but that was the idea, at least).

I like this approach and suggest to do the same here, meaning:
1. Transition the "w3c/tvapi" repository to a "w3c/tvcontrol" repository, under the control of the WG. Transitioning will preserve the history, which seems valuable.
2. Re-create a "w3c/tvapi" repository, that will remain under the control of the CG and that will contain a snapshot of the current specification and a friendly message that redirects interested users to the "w3c/tvcontrol" repository.

Thanks,
Francois.


> From : Igarashi, Tatsuya [mailto:Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com]
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> I suggest to use separate ones, especially, from IPR policy 
> perspective. The TV Control API CG and TV Control WG should 
> collaborate not to go in separate ways, but the spec development based 
> on the WG charter should be separated from that of CG.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> -***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***--***---***---***-
> Tatsuya Igarashi (Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com) Innovative Technology 
> Development Div, System R&D Group Sony Corporation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Needham [mailto:chris.needham@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 7:28 PM
> To: public-tvapi@w3.org; public-tvcontrol@w3.org
> Subject: Working Group draft specification
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> One of the discussion topics on the Tuesday's conference call was the 
> relationship between the TV Control API Community Group and the TV 
> Control Working Group, and in particular the specification produced by 
> the CG.
> 
> The WG plans to progress the TV Control API on the W3C Recommendation 
> Track, and the charter [2] says that the initial version of the 
> document will be copied from the CG's Final Report [1].
> 
> The specification is in GitHub at [3], so I would like to ask the CG 
> participants if the WG should continue development of the 
> specification in the existing repository, or if it should start a new 
> repository? The new repository could be a fork of the existing one.
> 
> I also mentioned the possibility of using the GitHub issue tracker to 
> keep track of issues and changes to the specification. My own view is 
> that GitHub will help by keeping the discussion about each specific 
> topic together. On the call, some people said they would prefer just 
> to use one tracking system. The CG currently uses W3C's issue tracker 
> [4]. A similar question arises: should the WG use the same issue 
> tracker as the CG, or should we use separate ones?
> 
> I expect the answers to these questions may depend on the nature of 
> the work the CG plans to do: whether all current activities transition 
> into the WG, or whether the CG will continue to work separately on 
> specific topics, such as overlap with the Automotive BG/WG.
> 
> I look forward to hearing your thoughts,
> 
> Chris (WG Chair)
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2015/tvapi/Overview.html

> [2] https://www.w3.org/2016/03/tvcontrol.html

> [3] https://github.com/w3c/tvapi

> [4] https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/track/

>

Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:51:58 UTC