15:59:18 RRSAgent has joined #tt 15:59:18 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/03/03-tt-irc 15:59:19 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:59:20 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:59:49 scribe: nigel 15:59:53 Present: Nigel 16:02:06 present+ Atsushi, Pierre, Andreas, Xabier 16:02:37 present+ Cyril 16:02:40 cyril has joined #tt 16:02:43 calvaris has joined #tt 16:03:12 pal has joined #tt 16:03:13 hi everyone. I'm attending a conference at the same time and won't be able to talk, unless needed 16:03:28 first conference in 2 years! Mile High Video 2022 16:03:44 Denver 16:03:55 Topic: This meeting 16:04:05 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/02/17-tt-minutes.html 16:04:10 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/211 16:04:50 Nigel: No regrets received today. 16:05:01 .. Today we have: 16:05:04 .. IMSC HRM issues 16:05:17 .. Rechartering status update 16:05:22 .. TPAC survey 16:05:26 .. DST switch 16:05:42 .. AOB - is there any other business? 16:06:01 No AOB 16:06:12 Topic: IMSC HRM issues and pull requests 16:07:19 Nigel: We have several HRM PRs open, between 10 and 13 days old. 16:07:22 .. Some need a review. 16:07:58 .. Quick reminder that opening a PR is considered a CfC, and we leave them at least 10 working days, 2 weeks in practice, 16:08:17 .. to allow for review time, and for this repo, when they are merged they trigger republication of the WD on /TR. 16:08:41 Pierre: I accidentally deleted a review from Addison on #45. 16:10:09 Nigel: I think that is approved in reality - adding a note to the ticket. 16:10:23 Pierre: We need a review on #44. 16:10:48 Nigel: That needs Addison or i18n input. 16:11:00 Pierre: Yes, I don't expect any controversy but it would be good to get the input. 16:11:38 Nigel: I just added the i18n-tracker label to it to get their attention. 16:12:00 Atsushi: That will cause an accompanying issue to be created in the HR repository 16:12:48 Nigel: I think I've addressed the review comments on #42, earlier today. 16:12:52 Pierre: Really minor, we can talk about it. 16:13:21 .. The issue is do we need to create terms and definition entries when the term is exactly what is 16:13:30 .. used in another document. I see pluses and minuses. 16:13:47 .. The minus is you get a terms section like IMSC where they all point you to another spec. 16:14:05 .. But I also take the point that an inline definition goes directly to the referenced doc, which might be jarring. 16:14:08 .. We should be consistent. 16:14:20 .. So far I went down the path of not defining terms that are already defined in other docs. 16:14:37 .. Strictly from an editorial standpoint I'd rather continue down that path, in this ticket, 16:14:45 .. and we could have another ticket for dedicated entries. 16:14:48 q+ 16:14:55 ack n 16:16:09 Nigel: [clarifies point about clicking on terms and definitions to find out where they're used] 16:16:22 Pierre: Oh I see what you mean. My request is not to do that here, and if we want to 16:16:31 .. change tack, do it across the whole spec as an editorial pass. 16:16:33 Nigel: OK 16:16:42 Pierre: Then I will create terms and definitions for all of them. 16:16:49 Nigel: OK I'll do that, and raise the issue. 16:16:56 Pierre: Thank you. 16:17:02 .. Just one more thing on this pull request. 16:17:24 .. Much stronger opinion - you point out that Respec automagically knows about some terms, like grapheme. 16:17:37 .. I don't like relying on that for terms that are important, so we should make the link explicit. 16:18:09 .. The document should not depend on some weird magic to determine where terms are defined. 16:18:19 Nigel: Right, because Respec's hidden mapping could change one day? 16:18:40 Pierre: Yes, we've been caught by that before though it's less of a problem. 16:18:52 .. Once we're done with that then I can complete the introduction #42. 16:19:36 .. You had a question about the two places where code points are used. 16:19:52 Nigel: Yes, we have gone round a loop here where we changed "character" to "code point" and 16:20:28 .. then defined "character", but GCpy and Ren are currently saying "code point" - should we change it back to "character". 16:20:34 Pierre: I see what you're saying, let's see. 16:21:06 nigel has joined #tt 16:21:35 .. We say that a Glyph is one character. I think you're right we should revert that. 16:21:37 Nigel: Great, thank you, I'll do that. 16:22:01 .. The user customisation PR is approved, thank you Andreas. One day to go on that one. 16:23:04 .. Looking at #40 I think I addressed your comments Pierre, if you want to take a look. 16:23:17 Pierre: Sorry about that. You addressed all the comments? 16:23:20 Nigel: I believe so. 16:23:41 .. I think that's all the open PRs. 16:24:19 .. The reason we went round this loop is to head off obvious problems that could come back 16:24:33 .. if we request Wide Review. I think there are no other issues that urgently needed tackling. 16:25:53 .. I think we decided all the other issues would be tackled by 16:25:58 .. changes to explain better. 16:26:17 Pierre: Yes. The only one is #37 where Addison suggests calling on rendering experts, and mentions someone, 16:26:20 .. but we never heard back. 16:26:25 Nigel: Ah yes, I recall. 16:26:50 .. For that one, we don't know what action to take just yet. 16:26:55 Pierre: Exactly, yes. 16:27:15 Nigel: So we leave that open during Wide Review. 16:27:26 .. We could call it out for review comments, but I think that's probably not needed. 16:28:40 .. So in the next few days we should have got this all done. 16:28:53 .. One question for me: with auto publishing, what happens if we merge more than one PR on the same day? 16:29:00 Atsushi: The latest one will win. 16:29:13 .. Assuming they all pass pub tests 16:29:24 .. I will get notified from echidna if any of them fails. 16:29:44 .. I'm dealing with around 10 specs doing this in other groups. 16:30:02 Nigel: Ok, any more on IMSC HRM? 16:30:22 Nothing more 16:30:24 Topic: Rechartering status update 16:30:35 Nigel: The AC review is open. 16:30:41 .. We have one request for a change, 16:30:53 .. and currently one formal objection unless a change is made to our success criteria, 16:31:06 .. and the change requested is to revert to 2 independent implementations. 16:31:29 .. I have contacted the objector, to see if the request for a change would satisfy them, 16:31:35 .. but have not had a response yet. 16:32:02 .. You might have noticed there is a PR open on the draft charter: 16:32:20 .. Pull request on charter: https://github.com/w3c/charter-timed-text/pull/75 16:32:35 .. That introduced the word "independent" and I don't think it's controversial. 16:33:26 Atsushi: Please everyone ask your AC reps to vote on this. 16:33:48 .. It is highly encouraged that every AC rep for a participant of this WG answers. 16:34:02 .. If someone does not answer then we need to gather comments from them individually. 16:34:07 Nigel: Is that for the team? 16:35:06 Atsushi: Yes, I need to do it. If they have not all answered then it may put approval at risk. 16:35:12 .. So please ask your AC rep! 16:35:23 Andreas: Is there anything special with invited experts? 16:35:33 Atsushi: No, not for invited experts, but for members. 16:36:09 Nigel: At the moment all of the responses are from people who do not typically participate. 16:36:30 .. The survey has 20 more days to run, until 2022-03-23. 16:37:29 Atsushi: I have a 3rd Covid vaccination planned for around that time, so it might take me out for a few days - 16:37:39 .. it did last time. So please don't leave it to the end of the period! 16:37:46 Nigel: Ok to minute that? 16:37:51 Atsushi: Fine to minute it. 16:38:09 Nigel: Anything else on this topic? 16:38:29 Pierre: Nigel, I've also reached out to the objector asking them if their objection was on principle or 16:38:39 .. targeted to all of the work products, or specific ones, and I have not heard back. 16:38:50 Nigel: Interesting. 16:39:03 Pierre: Not sure why they're not being responsive after filing an objection. 16:39:12 Nigel: Thanks for that. 16:39:29 Topic: TPAC Survey 16:39:47 Nigel: Chairs have been asked to fill in an informative survey to help guide decisions about what to do at TPAC, 16:40:28 .. which will be followed up by another more definite survey in May. 16:40:52 i/Topic/Gary: It's only been a week since we reached out to the objector, so it is not unreasonable that they have not replied yet. 16:43:01 q+ 16:43:32 Nigel: It's impossible to know what lies in the future, of course, but please respond as positively as you can, 16:43:38 Pierre: Will we have an agenda? 16:43:56 Nigel: Please respond assuming we do have an agenda. 16:43:59 ack atai 16:44:15 Andreas: I echo the question from Pierre - how important is it to have a face to face meeting. 16:46:01 Nigel: Yes, when we have discussed in the past, it's clear that members 16:46:32 .. value cross-fertilisation and meeting people from other groups. 16:46:44 .. In the case of this TPAC, I think it may be one where people want to be present in person 16:47:01 .. to discuss the future of W3C itself, if it has not all been sorted out by then, because there 16:47:21 .. are things going on with the hosts, and a move to a new legal entity, that may need some decisions. 16:47:36 Andreas: What about the agenda for this WG though - what do you think would be on the agenda? 16:48:01 Nigel: Obviously I can't be certain, but I think there may well be substantive discussions to be had about the Dubbing and AD work, 16:48:19 .. and even potentially the IMSC HRM. Those are just from what we're working on now. 16:48:41 .. September seems like a long way away, but experience shows we often end up discussing things we started thinking abotu 16:48:45 .. around Feb/March. 16:48:50 s/abotu/about 16:49:08 .. I don't discount there may be other things as well. 16:49:13 Andreas: I think that makes sense. 16:49:22 Pierre: Looking at your email, and thanks for highlighting it, 16:49:34 .. I think I missed it because it says "Chair's survey" and I'm not a Chair, so thanks. 16:49:40 .. Specifically, looking at the questions, 16:49:51 .. "if you're group is somewhat likely to hold a meeting", 16:50:04 .. I don't think TTWG will have enough agenda items to meet at TPAC. 16:50:28 .. If I were to answer your survey today, I don't see a reason for TTWG to hold a meeting in person. 16:50:49 Nigel: Ok, that isn't actually the question I asked though! 16:51:37 Atsushi: There are questions about hybrid meetings too. 16:52:21 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2022Feb/0002.html Chair's survey request email 16:52:31 .. I am not sure if I will go to Vancouver. 16:52:53 .. It is somehow a daft question to Chairs if they can schedule an online meeting. 16:53:06 .. I don't believe it is so important to fill in at this moment. 16:53:16 Nigel: We were asked to complete this, and asked again earlier this week. 16:54:10 Pierre: The question needs an "it depends" option! 16:54:43 Atsushi: W3C staff need to decide whether to book offline meeting equipment, so this is information for decisions. 16:55:13 .. I believe it should be fine to say "it depends on the situation" 16:55:17 Nigel: It's not one of the options! 16:56:07 .. Everyone knows things can change at quite short notice, I'm just trying to help the team with the questions they've asked. 16:56:14 .. I can't make these answers up myself! 16:56:23 Pierre: Can you abstain? 16:56:30 Nigel: I could not answer, but that would be unhelpful. 16:57:09 .. I get this is answering an impossible question, but do please try to answer. 16:57:15 Topic: DST switch 16:57:29 Nigel: Clocks go forward Sunday 13 March in US and Canada. 16:57:36 .. Clocks go forward Sunday 27 March in Europe. 16:57:42 .. Clocks go backward 3rd April in Australia and New Zealand. 16:57:48 .. Clocks do not change in Russia, China and Japan. 16:59:19 Pierre: I have a meeting after this one that will stay fixed to European / US time 16:59:28 Nigel: What will they do on 17th March? 16:59:34 Gary: Easy thing is to skip it! 16:59:44 Andreas: Can we do the last thing as we did last year, whatever it was? 16:59:50 Pierre: +1 17:00:03 Gary: You expect us to remember that? 17:00:13 Andreas: It's all documented! 17:00:20 Atsushi: I'm fine for both options. 17:00:52 .. My i18n meeting will follow UK DST 17:01:42 Nigel: In that case I propose that we do the same, so the meeting will be 1 hour later than normal on 17th March in US and Canada. 17:01:52 Atsushi: I will follow your decision. 17:02:07 Gary: Sounds fine to me. 17:02:15 .. Just figure out what time the most folks can join. 17:03:18 Nigel: OK, it's one week, let's switch based on DST on 31st March and thereafter. 17:03:58 Topic: Meeting Close 17:04:12 Nigel: Apologies we're 3 minutes over, let's adjourn. [adjourns meeting] 17:04:19 rrsagent, make minutes 17:04:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:05:32 Chair: Gary, Nigel 17:09:20 rrsagent, make minutes 17:09:20 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/03-tt-minutes.html nigel 17:10:39 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 17:10:42 zakim, end meeting 17:10:42 As of this point the attendees have been Nigel, Atsushi, Pierre, Andreas, Xabier, Cyril 17:10:44 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 17:10:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/03/03-tt-minutes.html Zakim 17:10:47 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:10:51 Zakim has left #tt 17:11:04 rrsagent, excuse us 17:11:04 I see no action items