Meeting minutes
This meeting
Nigel: Today we have Charter status, and Registry boilerplate
… Is there any other business?
Pierre: There's an IMSC-HRM issue that we need to discuss - can we close?
Nigel: Ok we can do that
Pierre: It's #61 in imsc-hrm
Charter Status
Nigel: We have an active Charter again, after another extension was granted.
Nigel: As discussed last time with Philippe, the Charter objection has been reverted to the FO Council.
Gary: I also saw that Tess responded in the charter review thread.
Pierre: Did you see the response from the TAG too?
Nigel: I don't recall seeing it. Was it recent?
Pierre: 2-3 weeks ago.
Nigel: Amy posted an update (member-only)
Response to Philippe from Tess (member only)
Pierre: There's a longer email from Mozilla by the way
Nigel: Yes, I saw and responded to that.
Nigel: Anyway, this is now back with the FO Council.
Gary: We haven't heard anything else about the FO Council since Amy's email?
Nigel: I haven't, no.
Gary: I guess we wait then.
Nigel: Yes!
Pierre: You'll see that the TAG review asked the question again whether or not IMSC-HRM should be a Note.
Nigel: Ok I'll have to dig that out.
… Is that a review of IMSC-HRM or of the Charter?
Pierre: It's a review of IMSC-HRM from Amy on Jan 9.
Nigel: Thank you for pointing this out, I didn't notice it. I will look at it and respond.
… Anything else on Charter status?
IMSC-HRM PR: Define presentation compositor #61
github: w3c/
Nigel: In the context of the previous discussion, it may be that Amy is waiting for
… an answer to the TAG review comment's questions before coming back on this.
… I think we need to leave it as is until we've responded.
Pierre: Arguably this is completely editorial, so we should merge.
Nigel: It may be - let me try to unblock this by talking, first.
Pierre: alright
SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to talk to/ping @rhiaro to unblock this.
Defining a Registry w3c/ttwg#241
Nigel: Thanks to all who looked at this and chipped in over the past 2 weeks.
… It feels as though we're approaching consensus
… To summarise:
… I opened an issue on the Process about fallback custodianship and I think the Process CG recognised that it was an omission.
… Gary discovered how to do Registry Track in Respec.
Gary: I haven't tried it
Nigel: I have faith
Atsushi: I believe it should work
Nigel: We can draft boilerplate text in TTWG repo
… There seems to be general agreement about the assumptions and the strawman
… Gary and Nigel discussed provisional entries and deprecation and came up with a basic flow
… Provisional -> Final -> Deprecated or something similar
Gary: I haven't come up with anything better since.
Nigel: Me neither.
Gary: Might be good enough
Nigel: Yes
… There was an interesting question about TTML Profile Registry.
… I did a comparative analysis and concluded that migrating it would probably be a Good Thing.
… though the co-editor (Mike) doesn't want to spend the time doing it himself!
… We gathered examples of some other Registries which I haven't looked at in any detail.
… And, er, that's it.
… Let's open the floor in case there are comments/questions.
…
… The first question:
… Do we have enough alignment/agreement to begin drafting boilerplate text, e.g. in the ttwg repository?
Nigel: Or put another way, does anyone see any unresolved problems with the current straw man?
Cyril: I need to catch up on this - can I have some time to look at it offline?
Nigel: Yes of course
Cyril: I presume the Process has some requirements?
Nigel: Yes, this is a proposal for boilerplate text for TTWG repositories to meet those requirements.
Cyril: Would the DAPT registry be first for this proposal, or the TTML Profile Registry?
Nigel: Either or both - I haven't decided, but if we need a DAPT Registry track registry then that could be the first one.
Cyril: And we can do this with the Charter extension?
Nigel: Yes I think so.
Cyril: It looks good what you have, nothing controversial that I see.
Nigel: Thanks. Before he (just) left Gary sent a message on IRC "gotta drop off in a minute. I don't have any objections"
… My next agenda question was "Should we begin porting any existing registries to the Registry track?"
… but that's the wrong question.
… Instead, I think the next stage is to begin drafting the boilerplate text so we have something concrete
… to review instead of this discussion straw man.
… Should I take an action to draft something for review next call?
<atsushi> +1 for drafting ;)
Andreas: I haven't had much time to look at it but my proposal would also be to continue.
Nigel: Okay, I will go ahead and draft something.
… I've just opened w3c/
Nigel: Any other thoughts about Registries?
group: [no more thoughts]
Meeting close
Nigel: Thanks everyone. [adjourns meeting]