RE: Working Group draft specification

Hi all

+1 that having a fork of the specification and concurrent versions would be very unsatisfactory, and confusing. Not just for those working on the specification and those referencing it, but for anyone were they to try and implement or test it.
 
Thanks
Dr Bob Campbell 
CTO 
Eurofins Digital Testing, UK and Hong Kong
Tel: +44 (0)1179 896 100 | Castlemead, Lower Castle Street, Bristol, BS1 3AG, United Kingdom | http://www.eurofins-digitaltesting.com/


Please note as Digital TV Labs is now part of the Eurofins group,  my new email address is BobCampbell@eurofins.com, please update your records accordingly.

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete. The sender therefore is in no way liable for any errors or omissions in the content of this message which may arise as a result of email transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy. We take reasonable precautions  to ensure our emails are free from viruses. You need, however, to verify that this email and any attachments are free of viruses, as we can take no responsibility for any computer viruses, which might be transferred by way of this email. We may monitor all email communication through our networks. If you contact us by email, we may store your name and address to facilitate communication, Eurofins Digital Product Testing UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales, (Registration Number 05556060), whose registered office is at I54 business Park Valiant Way, Wolverhampton, WV9 5GB.


-----Original Message-----
From: Futasz, Alexander [mailto:alexander.futasz@fokus.fraunhofer.de] 
Sent: 10 May 2016 12:46
To: Francois Daoust; 'Igarashi, Tatsuya'; 'Chris Needham'; public-tvapi@w3.org; public-tvcontrol@w3.org
Subject: 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/

> 





ScannedByWebsenseForEurofins

Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 12:11:10 UTC