Re: Media Resource In-band Tracks Community Group Launched

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Olivier Thereaux <
Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Mark, all.
>
> On 22 Oct 2013, at 18:29, "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Purpose: The purpose of this CG is to draft a spec in the specific area
> of mapping external specs, like MPEG-TS, to HTML5 in-band media tracks.
> This cannot be done in the IG because IG's are forbidden by W3C rules from
> writing specs. […] Membership: Note also that the CG, unlike the IG, allows
> for direct participation by non-W3C members, which should help with the CG
> focus on external specs.
>
> The participation argument made sense in the case of the Web &
> Broadcasting BG, where there was a significant number of non W3C-members
> wishing to participate in the conversation. It is unclear whether this is
> the case here.
>
> Regardless, the above sounds more like a case for our IG to become a CG
> than a genuine need for a new group. Maybe worth an agenda item at the
> upcoming f2f?
>
>
we can discuss this for sure if you like, but for the record we discussed
this already at last TPAC and agreed to keep the IG as is and create CG as
follow-up of IG activities as needed.


> > Focus: The focus of the CG is narrowly on mapping external specs, like
> MPEG-TS, to HTML5 in-band media tracks, whereas the IG and specifically the
> Media APIs Task Force (TF) is much more broadly focused.
> >
> > Specifically, the Media APIs TF could definitely write requirements in
> the area of mapping external specs to HTML5 in-band media tracks and the CG
> could turn those requirements into a draft spec. (Likely it could be the
> same people, in many cases!)
>
> The focus of the CG is a subset of that of the TF, yes. And it may be a
> good thing to have a spinoff group working on this spec at some point. It
> is however not sustainable to expect a given group to give input and
> feedback to itself across several mailing-lists. Having an IG spin off CGs,
> frankly, sounds like an unnecessary fragmentation burden.
>
> I would like to hear the opinion of the IG - and the Media APIs TF members
> in particular - about such a setup. I would personally prefer a solution
> where our IG would become a CG, have the right to go from use cases to
> draft spec, and then (and only then) spin off WGs whenever necessary.
>
>
Last year I was also favor of turning the IG into a CG. But the majority of
members back then preferred to have a clear distinction between an IG
working on use cases and requirements and CGs or WGs working on specs
drafts and actual spec.

I think there are also IP related issues that make just easier to keep the
2 separated (some people may not be willing to join a group if the scope is
too large while they may be OK joining a group with a limited scope).

We can rediscuss it if needed, but anyway we will have to work with
existing WG, so we need to find a way to work with other w3c groups anyhow.


/g


> Olivier
>
>
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
> specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
>