Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have IMSC HRM strategy and comms
… and the TTML2 issue on the agenda has since been closed by merging the pull request.
… Is there any other business?
… [hears no other business]
… Then let's proceed.
IMSC HRM Strategy and Comms
Nigel: Members have been emailing on the member-only reflector following
… my first and second drafts of comms to go out about the HRM.
… Thanks for the good discussion, let's see if we can converge.
… Probably its worth going back to the top and thinking what we want from these comms,
… since there are pulls in slightly different directions.
… I thought that we wanted to tell the world that we are working on the HRM specification
… due to implementer feedback, and inviting anyone else interested to participate.
… Are there other goals, or are they the wrong ones?
Mike: I have reservations about giving the impression that the HRM in IMSC 1.0.1 is in some way imperfect or unstable.
Andreas: I checked on the minutes from last meeting and I think the main part of our discussion
… was about how to deal best with the HRM and the different IMSC versions, and how to streamline or out-factor it,
… and get a better publication strategy.
… Then we noted at the end that possibly there is a bit of feedback missing on how the HRM is used in general,
… then the idea came to invite people to look at it.
… I think the main idea was to get some feedback on how it is used, in whatever way.
… Maybe we need to refine it a bit based on the discussion, how big we want to make this issue.
… We could take Pierre's approach of saying "please use it, there's a real world application", and let
… us know if there are real world impacts.
… I also liked your proposal Nigel to explain what the HRM is.
… But this also does not have to happen now; as Pierre noted we are not yet sure what direction it takes.
… And maybe make a bigger thing out of it later.
Nigel: Straw poll: based on the discussion, please could you say with a +1 if you think comms are still a good idea, -1 if not?
<pal> +1
<mike_> +1
<atai> +1
+1
Nigel: OK, we're all still in favour, so let's get the message right.
… What to do? Edit the text directly.
Mike: Let's list what we want.
… It's important to announce that there's an implementation of the HRM, because that's what's driving this.
… And invite people to comment, and use it, and provide feedback.
… I think that's sufficient, but (apologies for not making many meetings) I understand that there's interest in TTWG
… in an activity to look more closely at the HRM, and I think that's okay.
… The tutorial material is good, but we shouldn't lead with it, because a lot of people probably don't know what an HRM is,
… as evidenced by the email exchange.
… I would stop short of document structure, specific issues, what may or may not happen in 1.1 vs 1.0.1 - I think we need
<atai> +1
Mike: to stay away from that right now.
Andreas: I would agree with what Mike says. The minimal communication I think is already reflected
… in Pierre's proposal. That's the shortest thing you can do now.
… Then later, I'm not sure if we are missing feedback to get a better idea what to do
… to develop or fix the HRM or whatever.
… Apart from this announcement, which I think Pierre's proposal would be a good one,
… if we later then decide to make changes on it or out-factor it, then it would be a good idea to go into more detail,
… say it's out there, ask for feedback. That could be in the second stage.
Nigel: Pierre, the thrust of your draft is to request feedback based on experience of using your open source
… implementation on real documents. Is the goal of your implementation to be a reference implementation?
Pierre: The intent is to match the specification. If someone else had an implementation with different results then we'd want to know that.
Nigel: Just covering other points in the thread, I have the end state in mind - we're here to work on specification changes,
… so under W3C Process, I need to have a path towards getting any spec changes to Rec, in the long run.
… Gathering information is good, in so far as it helps us understand where the spec issues are.
Mike: Can we return to the comms?
Pierre: Agree, and also want to return to the comms.
Nigel: Is there anything else we need to gather as a goal before looking at the comms text?
Mike: The comms should not imply or state that there's anything necessarily wrong or unstable with the HRM.
Nigel: Agree with the goal.
Nigel: Let's work on the doc together. [shares text editor on screen]
… [group works on the text directly]
… I've emailed that as a response to the thread.
… By the way I've also contacted the Comms team, but haven't had a response yet.
… Any last thoughts, or stuff that we've forgotten to cover, on this topic?
Pierre: Looks good. Looking forward to feedback.
Nigel: I'll allow a little more time for any other members to comment, and then
… get this published as soon as I have a response from the Comms team.
AOB - TPAC
Nigel: If we do get feedback on HRM, could it be a good topic for TPAC?
Pierre: Trying not to get on my soapbox - let's deal with issues as they come in rather than looking for reasons for meetings at TPAC.
Nigel: Right, the list we have now is not hugely compelling, and we can deal with issues any time.
Meeting close
Nigel: We've completed our agenda, let's wrap it up there, thanks for all your contributions everyone.
… [adjourns meeting]