Re: Finalizing Second Screen Presentation WG draft charter

I haven't been carefully following this mail list.  I read this version 
of the proposed charter from the perspective of an AC rep, thinking 
about what other AC reps may bring up in the review.

1.
"Face-to-face: we will meet during the W3C's annual Technical Plenary 
week; an additional face-to-face meeting may be scheduled by consent of 
the participants"

This implies only one other face to face is allowed.  If it isn't the 
intent that it be a maximum of one other face to face, it should be 
something like "other additional F2F meetings may be scheduled (up to 2 
per year)".  That's from the proposed webapps charter - meaning a max of 
3 face-to-face meetings a year.

2.
"Presentation API
An API to enable displaying web content on a second screen and 
communicating between authorized pages and the content that is to be 
displayed on the second screen."


That sentence is hard to parse - the "ands" can be parsed as 3 separate 
things.  "communication between authorized pages"  is intended to mean 
pages in some set of authorized pages and something else.  It could be 
misread as a separate item meaning between one authorized page and 
another authorized page.  the description assumes the reader carefully 
read and understood the scope section so knows what authorized pages 
means.  the deliverables list need to be easy to understand on its own..

Suggested change:

An API to enable a page to display web content on a second screen with a 
communication channel between one or more authorized pages on the 
initiating device and the content that is to be displayed on the second 
screen."

3.

More on the Presentation API deliverable section.

"The initial version of this document will be copied from 
thePresentation API W3C Community Group Draft Report 
<http://webscreens.github.io/presentation-api/>which was produced by the 
W3C Second Screen Presentation Community Group."

That appears to link to an old version (the initial input to the CG?) 
that doesn't reflect what the CG has done in changing the way this is 
done.  i.e. by using a message channel instead of returning a 
presentation browsing context. e.g. "Fulfil/promise/with 
the|WindowProxy|of the newpresentation browsing context 
<http://webscreens.github.io/presentation-api/#presentation-browsing-context>as 
its value" is wrong now.

This CG should update the final report to use the current WebIDL. 
https://www.w3.org/community/webscreens/wiki/API_Discussion#WebIDL - or 
you're going to confuse AP reps with a report that doesn't reflect what 
you have in the charter and what you want the WG to use.

If you want to get the AC charter review under way before you change the 
report, then link now to a "Final Draft Report" that currently says the 
final report isn't completed and point there to the current WebIDL 
https://www.w3.org/community/webscreens/wiki/API_Discussion#WebIDL - say 
the final report will be complete by the time the WG starts.



4.
"Test suite
    A comprehensive test suite for all features of a specification is
    necessary to ensure the specification's robustness, consistency, and
    implementability, and to promote interoperability between User
    Agents. Therefore, each specification must have a companion test
    suite, which should be completed by the end of the Last Call phase,
    and must be completed, with an implementation report, before
    transition from Candidate Recommendation to Proposed Recommendation.
    Additional tests may be added to the test suite at any stage of the
    Recommendation track, and the maintenance of a implementation report
    is encouraged.  "

The process is likely to be changed to not have Last Call as a separate 
stage, merging it with Candidate REC (and happening when CR happens now 
- that's been worked on in the process CG).  I'd change the sentence 
that refers to Last Call to: "Therefore, each specification must have a 
companion test suite, which should be completed before transition to 
Candidate Recommendation, and which must be completed with an 
implementation report before transition to Proposed Recommendation."

5.
"The initial draft of the Presentation API was prepared by theSecond 
Screen Presentation Community Group 
<http://www.w3.org/community/webscreens/>. Upon approval of the Working 
Group, the Community Group will publish a W3C Community Group Final 
Report of its Presentation API specification and will cease its work on 
the deliverable. The Community Group may recharter to work on other 
related deliverables that are not yet ready for the Working Group, or 
disband when the Working Group is formed."

Isn't it the intent of the CG to continue work on other topics and for 
those to move to the WG when it recharters?  If it is, you should say 
that is the expectation.  The CG could decide not to, but it's better to 
say what the current thinking is.  reading this, I'd think the CG has no 
plans at all to continue.  That said, it should be very clear that the 
WG and CG will not simultaneously work on the same spec.

suggested text:
"The initial draft of the Presentation API was prepared by theSecond 
Screen Presentation Community Group 
<http://www.w3.org/community/webscreens/>. Upon approval of the Working 
Group, the Community Group will publish a W3C Community Group Final 
Report of its Presentation API specification and will cease its work on 
that deliverable. It is expected that the Community Group will recharter 
to work on other related deliverables where it is not clear enough how 
to proceed for it to be a workitem for a Working Group.  The Working 
Group and Community Group will never work on the same deliverable.  The 
Community Group is only one possible source for work under future WG 
Charters, but can serve to do initial exploration for some future 
workitems."


(see suggestion below on license section)

6.
"Some of the use cases that this Working Group aims to address, in 
particular the discovery and control of a display service connected on 
the local network, are also in scope of the Network Service Discovery 
API worked upon by the Device APIs Working Group. This Working Group 
will liaise with the Device APIs Working Group to avoid duplication of 
efforts and of solutions in this space."

I think AC reps will see this as a red flag.  It appears to say the 
proposed WG will be defining specs that overlap with or may conflict 
with another WG.  I don't think that's what is meant.  Discovery and 
control of a display device is NOT in scope for this proposed WG. That's 
up to the implementation.  The charter scope section is pretty explicit 
at saying that is out of scope. 
http://webscreens.github.io/charter/#out-of-scope 
<http://webscreens.github.io/charter/#out-of-scope>

Suggested change:
"While not a dependency for the specifications from this WG, the Network 
Service Discovery API from the Device APIs Working Group could prove 
useful in implementations of specifications produced by this WG. This 
Working Group will liaise with the Device APIs Working Group."

7.
"This Working Group will publish its specifications under theCreative 
Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License 
(CC-BY)<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/>as well as theW3C 
Document 
License<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231>(Dual 
License)."

The AC will ask why  CC-By is needed.  I suggest the following sentence 
in a new paragraph after the one above.  This depends on the suggestion 
for discussing the CG in the depencies section above.

"As described above, the Second Screen Presentation Community Group 
<http://www.w3.org/community/webscreens/>produced the initial draft that 
led to this Working Group and may similarly produce drafts on other 
related topics the Working Group could recharter to take up.  If it 
proves to be the case that some feature or an entire spec has problems 
that indicate it is not ready for standardization, it should be possible 
to pass that work back to the Community Group. The dual license would 
allow for that to happen."













On 2014-06-06 01:49, Francois Daoust wrote:
> Hello participants of the Second Screen Presentation Community Group,
>
> I prepared a few additional updates to finalize the draft charter. 
> These updates mostly address W3C process requirements. They do not 
> affect the scope of the group in particular. Associated pull request:
>   https://github.com/webscreens/charter/pull/7
>   (see [1] below for a copy of the list of changes)
>
> I also updated the text on interoperability based on remarks from 
> MarkF and MarkW. The updated pull request is at:
>   https://github.com/webscreens/charter/pull/6
>
> Once merged, these two pull requests create the following draft charter:
>   http://tidoust.github.io/charter/
>
> Let me know if you have any concern with these changes, or remaining 
> concerns with the contents of the draft charter.
>
> If everything looks good, the idea is to move on with WG creation 
> steps mid next week, and ask W3C Management (W3M) for approval of the 
> draft charter. Note that's not the final step as the draft charter 
> would then need to be reviewed by the AC (see [2] for details).
>
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>
>
> [1] List of changes copied from the description of the pull request:
> ----
> - Added the Privacy Interest Group and Web Security Interest Group to 
> the list of liaisons (I had missed them simply because these groups 
> did not exist last time I prepared a charter...)
> - Added the WebRTC group to the list of liaisons as a group that 
> develops specifications that are potentially relevant for implementors 
> of the Presentation API, e.g. for extending the API to support use 
> cases that the group will not address per se (such as content mirroring).
> - Milestones section completed, targeting a 2-year-long group
> - Added a short sentence that lets the group split API functions into 
> multiple specs if it resolves to do so (in other words to let the 
> group organize its work as it so wishes)
> - Clarified the Dual License mechanism in the Document License 
> section, using the same rules as those of the HTML WG
> - Dropped the authors section as I was not sure what to put in there. 
> Feel free to yell if you prefer to have something such as "Prepared by 
> the Second Screen Presentation Community Group" or names of individual 
> contributors
> - Updated the name of the mailing-list (now public-secondscreen) and 
> the group's home page address not to conflict with the mailing-list 
> that the CG will continue to use
> ----
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Charter.html
>
>