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