- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:41:42 +0200
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's Home Network TF call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/19-webtv-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.
Main points addressed during the call:
- Home Network TF charter approved as is by participants.
- Proposal submission process and use case template reviewed and clarified
- Agreed to stick to same time slot for future calls.
- Possibility to hold a TF F2F considered.
Next call on 3 May 2011 1400Z.
Given that this is the first meeting of the task force, I thought I'd clarify that the minutes are intended to capture roughly what got discussed during the call. Feel free to get back to me if you think something got missed or incorrectly captures the gist of the discussions. Don't expect too much out of minutes. They are by definition not perfect, but they prove useful to point back to previous discussions later on. Scribing duties are usually shared among participants. It's easy and useful. There's a short guide at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/scribe.html
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
19 Apr 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Apr/0102.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/19-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Giuseppe, Francois, Kaz, Donghyun, Russell, Jon, Narm,
Christian, Clarke, Jean-Claude, Tatsuya, David, Panu,
Bob_Lund, Hiroyuki
Regrets
Chair
Giuseppe
Scribe
francois
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Quick round of introductions
2. [6]TF Charter
3. [7]Proposal submission process and tools
4. [8]Use case submission template
5. [9]Open discussions
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Quick round of introductions
giuseppe: Hi everyone, let's start with a quick round of
presentation.
francois: Francois Daoust from w3c, here to help on logistics to
start with
kaz: another staff contact. tx for participating in this group!
russell: Russell Berkoff from Samsung
JanLindquist: from Ericsson, interested to contribute use cases and
requirements.
Narm: from Intel, interested in discussing technologies
Christian: from Opera software
Clarke: Clarke Stevens from CableLabs
jcd: Jean-Claude Dufourd from ParisTech, SVG and other groups in W3C
<panze> Panu Markkanen from Nokia
DavidCorvoysier: from France Telecom, attending the IPTV Forum
<Clarke> Hi Panu!
Panu: attending UPnP/DLNA
TF Charter
<giuseppep>
[11]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Charter
[11] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Charter
giuseppe: goal is to agree on scope and deliverables for this task
force
... I'd like to know whether it's ok as it is or if you have change
suggestions.
... starting from end date: end of July. I'd be the initial
moderator.
... Comments are welcome
Narm: Clarification on meeting slot. Is it fixed?
giuseppe: we can revisit if we have feedback. Based on
questionnaire, it seems like the best option we have. Unless people
object to it, I'd keep it.
kaz: giuseppe, are you planning to hold this call weekly/biweekly?
giuseppe: bi-weekly
... ref. the scope. The IG is not to write standards, but to work on
roadmap, priorities, inputs for working groups.
<Clarke> Bob Lund from Cablelabs is also on the phone
giuseppe: On top of use cases, we need to discuss where we'd like
this work to be taken forward.
... Deliverables is to identify clear gaps and suggest one or more
WG charters to fill the gaps, as needed.
<kaz> [ ask who joined from Finland right before this topic? ]
<kaz> [ so please go ahead ]
<panze> kaz: I saw 2 participants from Finland on the Wiki. Of those
I am here. Dunno about the other one.
jan: question regarding the requirements.
... It's a very broad term. Is it in terms of APIs?
giuseppe: my opinion is that we don't have to define APIs, but it's
fine to use API examples as a way to present possible solutions.
... The actual API may look completely different from what we'll
propose, but that's ok.
Clarke: we need to define APIs to enough detail that we come to some
conclusion on the architecture
giuseppe: we can focus more on the use cases. I don't see a strong
disagreement here. Both are valuable inputs for the task force.
BobLund: the combinaison of use cases plus APIs is very useful, I
think.
jcd: Putting things in text, whether it's API, XML, or text is
useful. It should not restrict what is done later on.
giuseppe: In the end, I don't think there's any change we need to
bring to the charter here for this.
... The timeline should be short, so that if we identify gaps, we
can move ahead quickly with rec-track deliverables following W3C RF
policy.
... Once we're done, we'll being the deliverables to the IG, since
this needs to be approved by the IG at a whole.
... Consensus in the IG does not mean 100% consensus, we can
highlight parts where there is no consensus and move forward.
... Are there questions or comments?
Russell: I noticed the charter statement has a link to the
requirements document. Are we approving the requirements in this
discussion also?
giuseppe: no. That's just a link to present where the doc that we'll
work upon will be.
... Once we finish our work, the goal is to have this document be
the final one.
Russell: thank you. No objection for the charter.
giuseppe: about the deadline. Does end of July seem reasonable?
<Clarke> Deadline seems reasonable
giuseppe: ok, we can move and consider this draft closed then.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Home Network TF charter is approved as is
RESOLUTION: Home Network TF charter is approved as is
<kaz> [12]approved charter of HNTF
[12] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Charter
Proposal submission process and tools
<giuseppep>
[13]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF#Proposal_submission_proce
ss_.5BDRAFT.5D
[13] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF#Proposal_submission_process_.5BDRAFT.5D
giuseppe: I started to draft a proposal for submission process to
organize the life of the task force
[giuseppe going through proposed process]
<kaz> [14]Issue Tracker page
[14] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/
giuseppe: depending on the discussions, the proposal may be merged
with the main document by the editor, or not.
<kaz> [15]Tracker page
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/
francois: tracker is good! It tracks emails provided ISSUE-xxx
appears in the subject or in the body of the email sent to the
public mailing-list.
kaz: do we need tutorial for tools?
... e.g. tracker?
giuseppe: I don't think we need tutorials. There's some
documentation already. Feel free to send questions to fd, kaz, or
myself.
Use case submission template
<giuseppep>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Use_Cases_Template
[16] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Use_Cases_Template
giuseppe: If there's no comment on the process, I'd like to touch on
the use case template
giuseppe: I took the initial suggestion and adapted slightly.
... It's good practice to send the submission in text form to the
mailing-list for indexing purpose.
... Is it good for the purpose we'd like to achieve?
russell: don't think things will work well without more diagrams.
<kaz> [ IRC_TIPS: please use "q+" to add you to the speaker queue ]
giuseppe: it's not forbidden. If it can be avoided, it's better, but
feel free to submit diagrames in binary form if that captures your
use case more precisely.
<Clarke> So the use case submissions will be formatted and placed in
the wiki document? Will this be done by the moderator or the
submitter?
francois: all for diagrams which usually help understand ideas.
We're usually more text-based because it's easier to share, but
that's not a requirement.
kaz: several possible options from attaching the diagram to the
mailing-list, a CVS repository on W3C servers, or attachement in a
wiki page. All of these options can be used.
giuseppe: to reply to Clarke's comment, the idea is that everybody
should be responsible for his own submission.
... The editor would take care of merging the submission with the
main document once submission has been discussed and agreed.
<giuseppep>
[17]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF#Proposal_submission_proce
ss_.5BDRAFT.5D
[17] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF#Proposal_submission_process_.5BDRAFT.5D
kaz: So everybody is expected to send their idea through email and
moderator puts it on wiki and so on, right?
giuseppe: no, submitter is to create the wiki page and the issue.
<kaz> [ 4. An Editor takes editing responsibilities for the issue.
In general the Submitter will also be the Editor but there could be
exceptions. ]
giuseppe: In general, we'll prefer the submitter to serve as Editor
for his own proposal, but there may be exceptions, of course.
kaz: got it, kind of Wikipedia approach, good.
giuseppe: yes, we don't have a spec, so can't really integrate it
directly.
russell: I would encourage CVS access so that we can submit use case
packages.
... I'd be more comfortable with a CVS repository.
... and being able to track differences.
giuseppe: The wiki provides similar versioning through the history.
<giuseppep>
[18]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
ns
[18] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions
giuseppe: Open discussions would be linked from the page I just
pasted. And then in the wiki, we can go back in history if we need
to rollback some of the changes.
<Zakim> francois, you wanted to note attachement size limit on
mailing-list.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to note we can use w3c-archive@w3.org for a
package attachment
francois: we may setup a CVS repository, or a Mercurial repository.
It's more for code, usually. Ref. attachement, please note size
limit on public mailing-list (5MB). Send bigger packages to
w3c-archive@w3.org and then link to them from email to
public-web-and-tv@w3.org mailing-list
<Clarke> Clarke was just talking
clarke: agree that we need to organize things. CVS repository is
probably an overkill. We need some kind of repository for test
cases, though, a listing.
<Clarke> Wiki is sufficient. Create separate directory for use
cases. Can we have a convention to indicate status (e.g. in
discussion, resolved, accepted, etc.)
giuseppe: If we have a page that lists use cases on the Wiki, would
that be enough?
clarke: yes, if we create a subdirectory on the wiki, that should be
good.
giuseppe: feel free to do it yourself.
russell: would like to see more formal acknowledgement of test case.
giuseppe: that's the idea behind the submission process, actually.
giuseppe: In the bi-weekly calls, we'll probably go over the open
discussions and close items based on discussions that would occur in
the meantime. The tracking will be done through Tracker.
russell: it's ok if chairs are going to do the tracking.
giuseppe: I'm not going to track everything. People should track
their submissions themselves.
russell: what about decision tracking?
giuseppe: depending on the use case, we'll need to assess level of
consensus. If there's no consensus, we can record contentious,
discard use case or note it's contentious. If there are minor
disagreements, we should agree on things and move on, noting caveats
if needed.
russell: I just want to confirm that issues will be tracked
appropriately.
<Clarke> Can we agree on status terms to avoid confusion? (open,
closed?)
giuseppe: yes, we'll close the issue once we agree on the use case,
based on consensus.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to propose we let advanced participants to
use CVS as well though we mainly use wiki
kaz: I wanted to mention that advanced participants could use CVS if
they want to, that's possible. Ref. decision tracking, we can track
open issues and decisions during conferences.
giuseppe: we can adapt the process as needed if it turns out not to
be strict enough.
... only participants of the IG can submit use cases. You need to be
a W3C member to have access to the tools.
<kaz> [ everybody can read, but only member participants can write ]
giuseppep: Being a member gives you more weight. We're open to get
comments from anyonre, but contributions is reserved to W3C members.
... Other questions apart from that?
<yosuke> yosuke: I think we should deal with public participation a
bit carefully. Because this is the first time we define what the
public participation should be in detail. What we've discussed was
just 1) using tools and 2) joining meetings are member-participants
only.
russell: any possibility to hold F2F meetings?
giuseppe: it is possible, yes.
... It's important to have discussions on the mailing-list, but that
doesn't exclude F2F meetings, yes.
... If people are willing to meet, we can meet.
francois: different groups have different views on the topic. F2F is
certainly a great way to move forward.
francois: Happy to setup a questionnaire if someone volunteers to
host F2F and a rough idea of when.
francois: before creating the questionnaire, we'd need someone to
host and a rough estimate on when the TF would meet.
giuseppe: right.
... if noone volunteers, we can discuss through email
kaz: Just wondering whether somebody on the call would be happy to
host such a meeting?
russell: it's a possibility to host such a meeting in the US. It
would be on the West Coast.
giuseppe: let's discuss offline
jcd: how long would this F2F be?
giuseppe: up for us to decide. 2 or 3 days.
jcd: I could be a host, depending on the date and duration. 2 days
in May might be possible for instance.
giuseppe: for the length, 2 days is a minimum.
... not before end of May.
[ I suggest to discuss that offline, there is a minimum number of
weeks we need to respect to announce a meeting to IG participants
from W3C process point of view. 5 weeks on top of my head ]
<kaz> [ Samsung US and Telecom ParisTech are candidates ]
Open discussions
giuseppe: As I said, the idea is to go through open discussions, and
see the gist of the discussions, if there's agreement or
disagreement.
giuseppe: might make sense to have one use case per page so we don't
need to approve all of them at once.
<Clarke> I agree with different pages for each use case at least
during development. It would help keep things organized and easier
to track.
giuseppe: About duration of this call. 1h30, is that ok? Should it
be 1h or 2h?
<Clarke> 1 1/2 hrs is good
jcd: 1.5 hours is very good
russell: I can only do 1 hour at this time slot.
giuseppe: understood.
russell: I'd need to request a different date if we go for more than
1 hour.
giuseppe: right. It will be hard to suit everyone.
<Clarke> We can make sure we discuss Russel's issues during the 1st
hour
<panze> +1 for Clarke. This is a good time slot.
francois: +1 to Clarke's suggestion. Redoing the questionnaire over
and over won't necessarily bring a better slot. Decisions taken
during the call can be revisited if you cannot attend the call.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to mention the possibility we split the TF
into sub TFs
kaz: We could hold multiple calls for the task force, e.g., one slot
for a specific use case and another for another use case
giuseppe: I don't think it would solve the problem.
... Other comments on this?
... I would suggest to keep this timeslot right now. We'll rearrange
topics in the agenda for participants who need to drop after an
hour.
... Let's give it a try.
russell: ok, we'll see if it's workable.
JanL: question about the requirements document.
... There was a question on the mailing-list and I didn't have a
clear conclusion.
... Separate list of services we're considering, for instance
"remote control".
giuseppe: since we're not writing specifications, we should be able
to capture concepts without being too precise.
JanL: having a list of services we want to address would be useful
giuseppe: happy to see what this would look like
... If you can put in writing your proposal, we can discuss that.
JanL: OK, I'll propose that to the mailing-list.
giuseppe: I'd like to ask people to follow the submission template I
proposed, answering questions that are there, so that we can take
them during next call. Are there urgent things we need to discuss
now or can we continue offline?
... None heard. Next call will be: 3 May 2011 1400Z. Talk to you on
the mailing-list. Bye!
[call adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 17:42:10 UTC