14:58:45 RRSAgent has joined #tt 14:58:45 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-tt-irc 14:58:49 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:58:49 Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference 15:00:47 cpn has joined #tt 15:02:17 Present+ Andreas, Atsushi, Chris_Needham, Gary, Nigel, Pierre 15:02:21 Chair: Gary, Nigel 15:02:35 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/231 15:03:00 Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/09/29-tt-minutes.html 15:03:03 scribe: nigel 15:03:14 Topic: This meeting 15:03:23 scribe+ cpn 15:03:27 atai has joined #tt 15:03:27 Nigel: Volunteers to scribe? 15:03:33 Chris: Me! 15:04:10 Nigel: One agenda item today, thanks for joining. Response to the team report from Atsushi for the FO Council experiment on our charter update 15:04:18 ... Anything else? 15:04:33 (nothing) 15:04:56 Topic: Response to team's charter FO report 15:05:04 Nigel: You should all have a link to the report 15:05:10 -> https://www.w3.org/2022/09/ttwg-charter-fo-report.html FO Council report 15:05:44 Nigel: Atsushi, you sent a call for comment. The two parties who can comment, according to the draft process, are the deciders and the objectors 15:05:55 ... We are the deciders, we've been given a week to respond. 15:06:10 ... There's a decision review period of 2 weeks, 10 working days 15:06:33 ... I don't think we can sensibly respond as a WG with the Chairs assessing WG consensus to have a WG decision to respond with any particular text 15:06:44 ... That's the first problem 15:06:57 ... My proposal to deal with that is for Gary and I to send a Chairs' response 15:07:26 ... I'd like to share our draft response with you in this call, and get to a point where Gary and I are happy, and that's the basis of what we'd send 15:07:35 ... Does that make sense from a procedural point of view? 15:07:43 Andreas: Are you looking for consensus on the draft? 15:08:03 Nigel: Yes, purpose here is to assess some level of consensus without going through the full decision review period 15:10:06 ... [shares screen with draft text] 15:10:20 ... I'll go through and please comment 15:10:46 ... The first is the note on procedure, to make a Chairs' response rather than a TTWG consensus, but we will try to get consensus in this meeting 15:11:40 Pierre: I'd suggest a few tweaks here 15:11:56 ... [edited to update] 15:12:18 Nigel: Three categories: substanstive comments, editorial comments, and process observations for the FO Council experiment 15:13:08 Present+ Mike_Dolan 15:13:40 Nigel: You're in a strange position, as the one who wrote the report. Please comment as a WG member 15:13:56 Atsushi: I sent a message on behalf of the team, it's the team's report, not my report 15:14:07 Nigel: That's possibly not clear enough 15:14:37 Pierre: So clarify the document was shared by the team 15:14:48 Atsushi: It was shared after team review, so it's the team's report 15:15:54 Gary: The provenance of the document can get confusing, who drafted it 15:16:13 Pierre: The author isn't TTWG, it's shared on behalf of the team by its editor 15:16:33 Nigel: But Atsushi is a WG member, as well as on the team 15:16:45 Pierre: I see, that wasn't clear in the draft 15:17:38 Atsushi: On that point, I somehow feel the team report should be consistent in two parts: a totally independent report, recorded history, and some comment from the team/team contact closely related to the WG 15:17:53 ... So I'm confused by the overall configuration of this document actually 15:18:13 Nigel: It's difficult for all of us 15:19:08 Nigel The substantive comments. The procedural history section should contain the background to the decision, including timeline, and missed opportunities to comment 15:19:22 ... This is mentioned in the report, but I'm asking to make it clear in the timeline 15:20:03 ... The procedural history should describe the attempts to resolve. I was advised by Philippe on a call that we didn't need to address Mozilla's comments 15:20:41 ... So now, it's a matter of importance. Presenting that email as a FO casts us in a more negative light than we think is reasonable 15:20:57 Philippe: I feel Mozilla hasn't tried to reach out to us 15:21:11 Nigel: They haven't, but the onus is on us 15:21:20 s/Nigel The/Nigel: The/ 15:21:39 Andreas: So should the Mozilla objection shouldn't be part of the team report 15:21:58 Nigel: It's important to capture, but there's no explanation about why we didn't do anything with it 15:22:11 Andreas: By the process though, it isn't a FO 15:23:15 Gary: Philippe mentioned at the last meeting, is a benefit of Mozilla FO is that they'd be excluded from the council 15:23:46 Nigel: The premise of Apple's and Mozilla's FO is false, because it's a requirement that doesn't exist 15:24:06 ... So it's a misuse of process to introduce such requirements, and the Council shouldn't entertain those objections 15:24:46 ... The final paragraph in the Analysis, the explanation omits important details 15:25:11 ... The HRM is already Rec Track text in 3 Recs 15:25:18 ... Important not to miss that out 15:25:43 ... Capture that Adobe's objection was resolved and that also resolved the MovieLabs objection 15:26:18 Andreas: Google had a similar concern, proposed something that was adopted by the WG, and the objector was fine 15:26:26 Nigel: What change are you asking for? 15:26:41 Andreas: The text inline in the team report 15:26:50 Nigel: Excellent point, I didn't observe that 15:27:05 mike has joined #tt 15:28:34 ... Finally, our overall view is the spirit of the deleted SHOULD requirement is strengthened 15:28:40 Nigel: Any comments? 15:29:14 Atsushi: Could you include a link on the resolved objections? 15:29:17 Nigel: Will do, yes 15:29:58 Nigel: Editorial suggestions. Firstly, it would be easier to understand if there were just a single timeline presented 15:30:22 ... Another minor one, is the group itself is referred to in 3 different ways. And include a link to TTWG participants too 15:31:13 ... There's wording in the report that reads strangely, "one idea to revise the charter". Change to say it was a WG decision 15:31:53 Nigel: The last section is two process related observations 15:32:23 ... The team's views here are unclear. Atsushi, because you're a TTWG member, our understanding is you share the group's views 15:33:13 ... It's helpful to clarify who's views are being expressed. It also causes tensions between team and WG 15:33:31 Gary: This stood out to me, but I didn't have an idea to improve it 15:34:18 q+ 15:34:23 Pierre: I'd consider striking some of the text. Not sure we should put Atsushi in a difficult position 15:34:32 Nigel: Happy to delete it 15:34:35 Gary: Yes 15:35:17 Andreas: I ask what Atsushi thinks. I wonder if this should be mixed up with the other parts. I also am not sure if the coordinator is part of the consensus of the WG 15:35:33 Nigel: The team member role in W3C may be different to how it works in other SDOs 15:38:27 cpn_ has joined #tt 15:38:30 scribe+ cpn_ 15:39:32 Nigel: That's everything 15:40:35 Andreas: The concern is this type of FOs that try to change Process through raising FOs 15:40:49 Nigel: Any other comments? 15:40:57 (none) 15:41:08 Nigel: Thank you all for going through this. 15:41:30 ... I'll add the links, then respond to the call for comments on behalf of me and Gary 15:41:33 Gary: That's OK 15:41:42 Nigel: Anything else to discuss? 15:41:45 (nothing) 15:41:57 Nigel: Thank you all, let's adjourn 15:43:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:43:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-tt-minutes.html cpn_ 15:44:13 rrsagent, make log public 15:45:26 i/Nigel: Any other comments?/... It's a general concern, not about singling out individual companies/ 15:45:29 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:45:29 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-tt-minutes.html cpn_ 15:47:02 s/Philippe:/Pierre:/ 15:47:03 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:47:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-tt-minutes.html cpn_ 15:51:52 i/Nigel: Thank/Topic: Meeting close 15:51:58 Nigel: [adjourns meeting] 15:52:02 rrsagent, make minutes 15:52:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:52:54 s/substanstive/substantive 15:55:49 rrsagent, make minutes 15:55:49 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-tt-minutes.html nigel 15:57:16 scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics 15:57:20 zakim, end meeting 15:57:20 As of this point the attendees have been Andreas, Atsushi, Chris_Needham, Gary, Nigel, Pierre, Mike_Dolan 15:57:22 RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2 15:57:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/10/06-tt-minutes.html Zakim 15:57:25 I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 15:57:29 Zakim has left #tt 15:57:59 rrsagent, excuse us 15:57:59 I see no action items