Re: Call for Consensus (CfC): Publish FPWD of "Region Capture"

Comments inline

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 3:49 PM Elad Alon <eladalon@google.com> wrote:

> I wish I could hear earlier that the document did not appear ready to you.
> At any rate, if your set of objections overlaps that of Youenn, then let's
> move forward and converge by Thursday, as you have suggested. Specifically
> which issues do you see as remaining unsettled since Youenn first posted
> his objections? From my POV, only #17 has the ball in my court, and I don't
> think this is an FPWD-blocking issue. We can document disagreement and
> proceed. Or wdyt?
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:38 PM Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Elad, to answer your question: this WG document did not appear ready
>> to me, because
>>
>>    1. it failed to document known outstanding disagreements (they don't
>>    have to be mine)
>>    2. it failed to represent progress that's been made between CfA and
>>    FPW (issues ready for PR)
>>
>> In my view, it's the editor's responsibility (with help from chairs and
>> this process) to ensure the document reflects WG agreement as best as
>> possible. I did comment on 3 of the issues, but to clarify for other
>> members: there's no rule you have to have commented or filed an issue to
>> get a vote— our schedules are busy, so make sure you get your say in while
>> the formal process allows it (which is today on this CfC)
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:23 PM Elad Alon <eladalon@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My objection is mild and could have been avoided by getting the document
>>>> in shape ahead of CfC.
>>>
>>>
>>> Jan-Ivar, I don't recall unresolved comments or issues you have filed
>>> before the CfC was sent out. Could you explain how this mild objection
>>> could therefore have been avoided?
>>>
>>> Assuming there are no more objections, I propose we spend the time
>>>> between now and Thursday's editor's call to get *"ready for PR"* PRs
>>>> merged, document outstanding *"API shape issues"* disagreements as
>>>> Notes in the document, and then proceed with FPWD.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:06 PM Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I object to publishing a Region Capture FPWD in the present form, due
>>>> to the same issues Youenn mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> My objection is mild and could have been avoided by getting the
>>>> document in shape ahead of CfC. The process [1] states:
>>>>
>>>> *"For all Working Drafts a Working Group:*
>>>>
>>>>    - *should** document outstanding issues, and parts of the document
>>>>    on which the Working Group does not have consensus, and *
>>>>    - *may** request publication of a Working Draft even if its content
>>>>    is considered unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements."*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assuming there are no more objections, I propose we spend the time
>>>> between now and Thursday's editor's call to get *"ready for PR"* PRs
>>>> merged, document outstanding *"API shape issues"* disagreements as
>>>> Notes in the document, and then proceed with FPWD.
>>>>
>>>
The *""API shape issues" disagreements"* here in my objection is a
reference to Youenn's list titled *"API shape issues" *below [1]


>
>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#maturity-levels
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:10 PM Harald Alvestrand <
>>>> harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Should we read this as an objection to publishing a FPWD in the
>>>>> present form?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/8/22 09:55, Youenn Fablet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems desirable to improve the quality of the document a bit before
>>>>> making it a FPWD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Several issues have been filed and seems to reach consensus (see
>>>>> issues labelled as Ready for PR).
>>>>> I would tend to go over them and update the document accordingly
>>>>> before publishing it as FPWD (
>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/22 and
>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/21 in particular).
>>>>>
>>>>> There are also a few API shape issues that it would be good to decide
>>>>> sooner rather than later, given Chrome is experimenting with this API.
>>>>> I am thinking of:
>>>>> - https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/11
>>>>> - https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/17
>>>>> - https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/18
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] here.

These three (#11, #17, #18) reflect disagreement over shape, sync vs.
async, and name, respectively. All three disagreements should be
documented, regardless of who's court the ball is in, is what I meant in my
objection.

Note my objection is in my capacity as a member, not as chair.

As for "ready for PR" issues, I observe that since PRs were not merged
ahead of the CfC, any normative changes they may contain won't have
benefited from broad review. I suppose the chairs will need to exercise
good judgement here of whether a follow-up CfC is needed or not. Hopefully
we can assess the list of PRs on Thursday.


>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Y
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Feb 2022, at 17:57, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working
>>>>> Draft (FPWD) of "Region Capture".
>>>>>
>>>>> The document is available for inspection here: Region Capture
>>>>> (w3c.github.io) <https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-region/>
>>>>>
>>>>> The github repo is here: w3c/mediacapture-region:
>>>>> http://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-region/
>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/>
>>>>>
>>>>> In response, please state one of the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>   *   I support publishing a FPWD of the Region Capture specification.
>>>>>   *   I object to publishing a Region Capture FPWD, due to issues
>>>>> filed in open bug <#number>
>>>>>
>>>>> The CfC will end on March 14, 2022.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bernard
>>>>>
>>>>> For the Chairs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>>
>

-- 
.: Jan-Ivar :.