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

I observe that five parties have interacted with this thread so far, and
that they are all represented on the Thursday meetings.
If there's anything that could help move this forward, please let me know.
I'd be glad to do that work ahead of Thursday.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:03 PM Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:

> 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 :.
>