See also: IRC log
giuseppe: Hi everyone, let's start with a quick round of presentation.
francois: Francois Daoust from w3c, here to help on logistics to start with
kaz: another staff contact. tx for participating in this group!
russell: Russell Berkoff from Samsung
JanLindquist: from Ericsson, interested to contribute use cases and requirements.
Narm: from Intel, interested in discussing technologies
Christian: from Opera software
Clarke: Clarke Stevens from CableLabs
jcd: Jean-Claude Dufourd from ParisTech, SVG and other groups in W3C
<panze> Panu Markkanen from Nokia
DavidCorvoysier: from France Telecom, attending the IPTV Forum
<Clarke> Hi Panu!
Panu: attending UPnP/DLNA
<giuseppep> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Charter
giuseppe: goal is to agree on
scope and deliverables for this task force
... I'd like to know whether it's ok as it is or if you have
change suggestions.
... starting from end date: end of July. I'd be the initial
moderator.
... Comments are welcome
Narm: Clarification on meeting slot. Is it fixed?
giuseppe: we can revisit if we have feedback. Based on questionnaire, it seems like the best option we have. Unless people object to it, I'd keep it.
kaz: giuseppe, are you planning to hold this call weekly/biweekly?
giuseppe: bi-weekly
... ref. the scope. The IG is not to write standards, but to
work on roadmap, priorities, inputs for working groups.
<Clarke> Bob Lund from Cablelabs is also on the phone
giuseppe: On top of use cases, we
need to discuss where we'd like this work to be taken
forward.
... Deliverables is to identify clear gaps and suggest one or
more WG charters to fill the gaps, as needed.
<kaz> [ ask who joined from Finland right before this topic? ]
<kaz> [ so please go ahead ]
<panze> kaz: I saw 2 participants from Finland on the Wiki. Of those I am here. Dunno about the other one.
jan: question regarding the
requirements.
... It's a very broad term. Is
it in terms of APIs?
giuseppe: my opinion is that we
don't have to define APIs, but it's fine to use API examples as
a way to present possible solutions.
... The actual API may look completely different from what
we'll propose, but that's ok.
Clarke: we need to define APIs to enough detail that we come to some conclusion on the architecture
giuseppe: we can focus more on the use cases. I don't see a strong disagreement here. Both are valuable inputs for the task force.
BobLund: the combinaison of use cases plus APIs is very useful, I think.
jcd: Putting things in text, whether it's API, XML, or text is useful. It should not restrict what is done later on.
giuseppe: In the end, I don't
think there's any change we need to bring to the charter here
for this.
... The timeline should be short, so that if we identify gaps,
we can move ahead quickly with rec-track deliverables following
W3C RF policy.
... Once we're done, we'll being the deliverables to the IG,
since this needs to be approved by the IG at a whole.
... Consensus in the IG does not mean 100% consensus, we can
highlight parts where there is no consensus and move
forward.
... Are there questions or comments?
Russell: I noticed the charter statement has a link to the requirements document. Are we approving the requirements in this discussion also?
giuseppe: no. That's just a link
to present where the doc that we'll work upon will be.
... Once we finish our work, the goal is to have this document
be the final one.
Russell: thank you. No objection for the charter.
giuseppe: about the deadline. Does end of July seem reasonable?
<Clarke> Deadline seems reasonable
giuseppe: ok, we can move and consider this draft closed then.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Home Network TF charter is approved as is
RESOLUTION: Home Network TF charter is approved as is
<kaz> approved charter of HNTF
<giuseppep> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF#Proposal_submission_process_.5BDRAFT.5D
giuseppe: I started to draft a proposal for submission process to organize the life of the task force
[giuseppe going through proposed process]
<kaz> Issue Tracker page
giuseppe: depending on the discussions, the proposal may be merged with the main document by the editor, or not.
<kaz> Tracker page
francois: tracker is good! It tracks emails provided ISSUE-xxx appears in the subject or in the body of the email sent to the public mailing-list.
kaz: do we need
tutorial for tools?
... e.g. tracker?
giuseppe: I don't think we need tutorials. There's some documentation already. Feel free to send questions to fd, kaz, or myself.
<giuseppep> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Use_Cases_Template
giuseppe: If there's no comment on the process, I'd like to touch on the use case template
giuseppe: I took the initial
suggestion and adapted slightly.
... It's good practice to send the submission in text form to
the mailing-list for indexing purpose.
... Is it good for the purpose we'd like to achieve?
russell: don't think things will work well without more diagrams.
<kaz> [ IRC_TIPS: please use "q+" to add you to the speaker queue ]
giuseppe: it's not forbidden. If it can be avoided, it's better, but feel free to submit diagrames in binary form if that captures your use case more precisely.
<Clarke> So the use case submissions will be formatted and placed in the wiki document? Will this be done by the moderator or the submitter?
francois: all for diagrams which usually help understand ideas. We're usually more text-based because it's easier to share, but that's not a requirement.
kaz: several possible options from attaching the diagram to the mailing-list, a CVS repository on W3C servers, or attachement in a wiki page. All of these options can be used.
giuseppe: to reply to Clarke's
comment, the idea is that everybody should be responsible for
his own submission.
... The editor would take care of merging the submission with
the main document once submission has been discussed and
agreed.
<giuseppep> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF#Proposal_submission_process_.5BDRAFT.5D
kaz: So everybody is expected to send their idea through email and moderator puts it on wiki and so on, right?
giuseppe: no, submitter is to create the wiki page and the issue.
<kaz> [ 4. An Editor takes editing responsibilities for the issue. In general the Submitter will also be the Editor but there could be exceptions. ]
giuseppe: In general, we'll prefer the submitter to serve as Editor for his own proposal, but there may be exceptions, of course.
kaz: got it, kind of Wikipedia approach, good.
giuseppe: yes, we don't have a spec, so can't really integrate it directly.
russell: I would encourage CVS
access so that we can submit use case packages.
... I'd be more comfortable with a CVS repository.
... and being able to track differences.
giuseppe: The wiki provides similar versioning through the history.
<giuseppep> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions
giuseppe: Open discussions would be linked from the page I just pasted. And then in the wiki, we can go back in history if we need to rollback some of the changes.
<Zakim> francois, you wanted to note attachement size limit on mailing-list.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to note we can use w3c-archive@w3.org for a package attachment
francois: we may setup a CVS repository, or a Mercurial repository. It's more for code, usually. Ref. attachement, please note size limit on public mailing-list (5MB). Send bigger packages to w3c-archive@w3.org and then link to them from email to public-web-and-tv@w3.org mailing-list
<Clarke> Clarke was just talking
clarke: agree that we need to organize things. CVS repository is probably an overkill. We need some kind of repository for test cases, though, a listing.
<Clarke> Wiki is sufficient. Create separate directory for use cases. Can we have a convention to indicate status (e.g. in discussion, resolved, accepted, etc.)
giuseppe: If we have a page that lists use cases on the Wiki, would that be enough?
clarke: yes, if we create a subdirectory on the wiki, that should be good.
giuseppe: feel free to do it yourself.
russell: would like to see more formal acknowledgement of test case.
giuseppe: that's the idea behind the submission process, actually.
giuseppe: In the bi-weekly calls, we'll probably go over the open discussions and close items based on discussions that would occur in the meantime. The tracking will be done through Tracker.
russell: it's ok if chairs are going to do the tracking.
giuseppe: I'm not going to track everything. People should track their submissions themselves.
russell: what about decision tracking?
giuseppe: depending on the use case, we'll need to assess level of consensus. If there's no consensus, we can record contentious, discard use case or note it's contentious. If there are minor disagreements, we should agree on things and move on, noting caveats if needed.
russell: I just want to confirm that issues will be tracked appropriately.
<Clarke> Can we agree on status terms to avoid confusion? (open, closed?)
giuseppe: yes, we'll close the issue once we agree on the use case, based on consensus.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to propose we let advanced participants to use CVS as well though we mainly use wiki
kaz: I wanted to mention that advanced participants could use CVS if they want to, that's possible. Ref. decision tracking, we can track open issues and decisions during conferences.
giuseppe: we can adapt the
process as needed if it turns out not to be strict
enough.
... only participants of the IG can submit use cases. You need
to be a W3C member to have access to the tools.
<kaz> [ everybody can read, but only member participants can write ]
giuseppep: Being a member gives
you more weight. We're open to get comments from anyonre, but
contributions is reserved to W3C members.
... Other questions apart from that?
<yosuke> yosuke: I think we should deal with public participation a bit carefully. Because this is the first time we define what the public participation should be in detail. What we've discussed was just 1) using tools and 2) joining meetings are member-participants only.
russell: any possibility to hold F2F meetings?
giuseppe: it is possible,
yes.
... It's important to have discussions on the mailing-list, but
that doesn't exclude F2F meetings, yes.
... If people are willing to meet, we can meet.
francois: different groups have different views on the topic. F2F is certainly a great way to move forward.
francois: Happy to setup a questionnaire if someone volunteers to host F2F and a rough idea of when.
francois: before creating the questionnaire, we'd need someone to host and a rough estimate on when the TF would meet.
giuseppe: right.
... if noone volunteers, we can discuss through email
kaz: Just wondering whether somebody on the call would be happy to host such a meeting?
russell: it's a possibility to host such a meeting in the US. It would be on the West Coast.
giuseppe: let's discuss offline
jcd: how long would this F2F be?
giuseppe: up for us to decide. 2 or 3 days.
jcd: I could be a host, depending on the date and duration. 2 days in May might be possible for instance.
giuseppe: for the length, 2 days
is a minimum.
... not before end of May.
[ I suggest to discuss that offline, there is a minimum number of weeks we need to respect to announce a meeting to IG participants from W3C process point of view. 5 weeks on top of my head ]
<kaz> [ Samsung US and Telecom ParisTech are candidates ]
giuseppe: As I said, the idea is to go through open discussions, and see the gist of the discussions, if there's agreement or disagreement.
giuseppe: might make sense to have one use case per page so we don't need to approve all of them at once.
<Clarke> I agree with different pages for each use case at least during development. It would help keep things organized and easier to track.
giuseppe: About duration of this call. 1h30, is that ok? Should it be 1h or 2h?
<Clarke> 1 1/2 hrs is good
jcd: 1.5 hours is very good
russell: I can only do 1 hour at this time slot.
giuseppe: understood.
russell: I'd need to request a different date if we go for more than 1 hour.
giuseppe: right. It will be hard to suit everyone.
<Clarke> We can make sure we discuss Russel's issues during the 1st hour
<panze> +1 for Clarke. This is a good time slot.
francois: +1 to Clarke's suggestion. Redoing the questionnaire over and over won't necessarily bring a better slot. Decisions taken during the call can be revisited if you cannot attend the call.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to mention the possibility we split the TF into sub TFs
kaz: We could hold multiple calls for the task force, e.g., one slot for a specific use case and another for another use case
giuseppe: I don't think it would
solve the problem.
... Other comments on this?
... I would suggest to keep this timeslot right now. We'll
rearrange topics in the agenda for participants who need to
drop after an hour.
... Let's give it a try.
russell: ok, we'll see if it's workable.
JanL: question about the
requirements document.
... There was a question on the mailing-list and I didn't have
a clear conclusion.
... Separate list of services we're considering, for instance
"remote control".
giuseppe: since we're not writing specifications, we should be able to capture concepts without being too precise.
JanL: having a list of services we want to address would be useful
giuseppe: happy to see what this
would look like
... If you can put in writing your proposal, we can discuss
that.
JanL: OK, I'll propose that to the mailing-list.
giuseppe: I'd like to ask people
to follow the submission template I proposed, answering
questions that are there, so that we can take them during next
call. Are there urgent things we need to discuss now or can we
continue offline?
... None heard. Next call will be: 3 May 2011 1400Z. Talk to
you on the mailing-list. Bye!
[call adjourned]