- From: mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 13:51:30 -0700
- To: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Cc: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, Mounir Lamouri <mlamouri@google.com>, Chris Needham <chris.needham@bbc.co.uk>
- Message-ID: <CALgg+HERtui8QLQeqFohdxXd3p8_AtHY4EbZ=_3n24=coZmmEg@mail.gmail.com>
Maybe we should request the shorter extension so we can solicit input at TPAC. My *personal* opinion is that the charter likely won't change in scope, but that could certainly change based on in person discussions. m. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:11 PM, François Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote: > Mark, Anssi, > > Le 26/09/2017 à 20:06, mark a. foltz a écrit : > >> Francois/Anssi - >> >> What is the timeline to request a charter extension? Should we start the >> process for consensus on this? >> > > Definitely. We're late already (my bad). > > A short charter extension (2-3 months) would take about 2 weeks to get. > Anything longer requires sending the W3C membership a call for review, > which takes at least 4 weeks + ~3 weeks to get W3C Management pre- and > post-approval. > > The plan I outlined for a 12 month extension with no scope change requires > a call for review, so we should try to reach consensus within the group as > soon as possible. > > Anssi, given the apparent intent not to change anything in the charter, a > call for consensus could perhaps be enough to claim victory or get people's > inputs? > > (We'll still need to refresh the charter a bit to note progress on the > specs since last time the group re-chartered, but that's editorial in > essence and can be done in parallel, I think) > > Francois. > > >> m. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:52 PM, mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com >> <mailto:mfoltz@google.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:13 AM, François Daoust <fd@w3.org >> <mailto:fd@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> Le 19/09/2017 à 19:03, mark a. foltz a écrit : >> >> Thank Anssi for setting this up. I will take a pass at the >> agenda shortly. >> >> One operational issue: the SSWG is chartered through October >> 31, immediately before TPAC. >> >> That timeline seems too tight for Presentation API to go to >> REC; by 10/31 we would need a CfC to go to PR, then follow >> the PR process, which takes at least 4 weeks if I remember >> correctly. Ideally, we (Chrome) would also appreciate extra >> time to address any issues found through implementation >> testing (to improve the implementation report). Also we may >> decide on a set of features for the level 2 spec. >> >> For the Remote Playback API, we will need an additional >> window of time to move it forward and address remaining >> issues (including interop, <video> feature requirements, and >> soliciting a second implementation). >> >> We could ask for a one-month extension on the current >> charter (to cover TPAC and REC track work on Presentation >> API v1), then discuss at TPAC the time frame for a revised >> charter (once we know the amount of work that would be in >> scope). > >> Thoughts? >> >> >> Do we have any visibility about potential changes of scope that >> we might want to put into the new charter? >> >> >> If you look at the existing list of 'v2' features for the >> Presentation API as well as the 'future' item for the Remote >> Playback API, they fall under the scope of the current charter, so I >> think we're good there. >> >> For instance, could any part of the on-going discussions on the >> Open Screen Protocol be ready for standardization by end of year >> and be worth including in scope of the Second Screen WG? >> >> >> Based on some basic criteria, I would say "no" right now. >> >> 1. Have we reached consensus on basic technical issues? Discovery, >> transport and security consensus remains outstanding. Hopefully at >> TPAC we can resolve these. >> 2. Do we have some implementation experience to give us confidence >> in the solution? Not yet - if Chrome continues to invest, and >> technical consensus is achieved, then we would be looking at 1H 2018 >> to begin an implementation effort. >> 3. Is Open Screen mature enough for wide review and scrutiny? When >> #1 and #2 are achieved, then I think we will be ready. >> >> Also, my default position is that the IETF is the right place to >> move the Open Screen work to the standards track, which would not >> impact the chartering process for the WG. >> >> If we know already that this work should rather remain in >> incubation for now, or should rather be standardized elsewhere, >> then we may want to ask for a one-year charter extension >> directly with limited or no change in scope to: >> >> 1. push the Presentation API to Recommendation, adjusting the >> test suite and the implementation report as needed; >> 2. start develop the Presentation API level 2 specification; >> 3. complete the test suite of the Remote Playback API and >> solicit a second implementation. >> >> If there are good chances that we'll want to adjust the scope of >> the charter, then now is a good time to start the discussion, >> and we can indeed ask for a short 1-2 month charter extension in >> the meantime. >> >> >> There may be new work that comes out of TPAC and/or collaboration >> with the Web & TV IG; it would likely start as incubation in the >> WICG or Webscreens CG though. >> >> Overall, I endorse Francois' plan suggested above. If there is a >> need to discuss scope further (above and beyond email) I'm happy to >> dial into a teleconference prior to TPAC. >> >> m. >> >> Francois. >> >> m. >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi >> <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com >> <mailto:anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> >> <mailto:anssi.kostiainen@intel.com >> <mailto:anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>>> wrote: >> >> Hi Second Screen WG/CG, >> Mark, Mounir, Chris, >> >> > On 14 Sep 2017, at 16.49, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org >> <mailto:fd@w3.org> >> <mailto:fd@w3.org <mailto:fd@w3.org>>> wrote: >> > >> > Hello Second Screen WG participants, >> > >> > Our next F2F will take place during TPAC in >> Burlingame, >> California. Please remember to register for the meeting >> at: >> > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2017/ >> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2017/> >> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2017/ >> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2017/>> >> > >> > Other events seem to be taking place around that >> area during the >> same week, so note flights and hotels are filling up >> fast! >> >> Now that you all have hopefully registered, it is a >> good time to >> look at the F2F agenda. >> >> I put up proposed F2F topics to the wiki to start the >> discussion: >> >> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Second_Screen/Meetings/Nov_2017_F2F# >> Agenda >> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Second_Screen/Meetings/Nov_2017_ >> F2F#Agenda> >> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Secon >> d_Screen/Meetings/Nov_2017_F2F#Agenda >> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Second_Screen/Meetings/Nov_2017_ >> F2F#Agenda>> >> >> (on mobile, click the topic to expand) >> >> Mark - given the Presentation API has had only minor >> revisions >> lately, I'd expect most of the F2F time spent on the >> Open Screen >> Protocol topics. Feel free to suggest more concrete >> breakdown of >> topics for the protocol-level discussions. >> >> Mounir, Mark - any topics you'd like to cover for the >> Remote >> Playback API in particular? My expectation is we're >> able to publish >> the CR before TPAC and as such should discuss the CR >> feedback >> received prior to TPAC. The current open issues do not >> seem to >> require too much discussion beyond #41 that is pending >> implementation experience. >> >> Chris - does the proposed joint session with the Media >> and >> Entertainment IG on Monday afternoon still work for >> your group? I'd >> suggest we meet right after lunch, say 2-3pm on Monday. >> OK? >> >> All - please let us know any topics you'd like to see >> discussed at >> the F2F that may have been missed. If you haven't yet >> registered but >> would like to attend, please do so by 6 October 2017. >> You can make >> edits directly to the wiki or simply reply to this mail >> with your >> suggestions. >> >> Looking forward to another productive Second Screen F2F >> at TPAC 2017! >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Anssi (Second Screen WG Chair) >> >> >> >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2017 20:52:16 UTC