- From: François Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:25:45 +0200
- To: "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>
- 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>
OK, then let's ask for a 2-month extension (until the end of the year) to allow us to discuss possible updates to the charter at TPAC and send a call for review afterwards. Anssi and other WG participants, would that be good for you? Let me know by next week, Tuesday 3 October, whether you'd like to proceed otherwise. Thanks, Francois. Le 26/09/2017 à 22:51, mark a. foltz a écrit : > 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 > <mailto: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> > <mailto: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> > <mailto: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>> > <mailto: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>> > <mailto: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/>> > <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/Second_Screen/Meetings/Nov_2017_F2F#Agenda > <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/Second_Screen/Meetings/Nov_2017_F2F#Agenda> > > <https://www.w3.org/wiki/Second_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 Wednesday, 27 September 2017 08:26:04 UTC