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