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