15:59:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #tt
15:59:27 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-tt-irc
15:59:29 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:59:30 <Zakim> Meeting: Timed Text Working Group Teleconference
15:59:30 <florian> present+ Florian
15:59:36 <nigel> present+ Nigel, Andreas, Pierre
15:59:45 <nigel> scribe: nigel
16:00:35 <nigel> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/issues/245
16:01:10 <nigel> Previous meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/02/02-tt-minutes.html
16:02:36 <nigel> Present+ Gary
16:02:41 <nigel> Chair: Gary, Nigel
16:03:08 <nigel> Topic: This meeting
16:03:38 <nigel> Nigel: Agenda for today is: Charter status, Defining a Registry, and IMSC-HRM.
16:03:44 <nigel> .. One AOB is the upcoming DST changes.
16:03:56 <nigel> .. Any other points to raise?
16:04:14 <nigel> group: none
16:04:24 <nigel> Topic: Charter status
16:05:13 <nigel> Nigel: Not sure if everyone has seen Amy's and Florian's emails from earlier today/yesterday.
16:05:18 <nigel> .. Thank you Florian for joining us.
16:06:09 <nigel> Florian: We (the Council) knows this has been taking longer than expected.
16:06:16 <nigel> .. Various reasons. One consequence is we entered a time when Amy has diminished availability,
16:06:19 <nigel> .. which made things worse.
16:06:32 <nigel> .. The AB and the Process CG have recently introduced a new provision to the Process
16:06:40 <nigel> .. allowing a change of Chair in a Council, which has enabled Amy
16:06:57 <nigel> .. to recognise that she did not have the time, and to pass it on, namely to me.
16:07:02 <nigel> .. This what happened recently.
16:07:16 <nigel> .. You discovered I was a Chair roughly the same time as I did!
16:07:24 <nigel> .. I haven't been in the role for 24 hours yet.
16:07:38 <nigel> .. Another thing that unfortunately took a while, and, having read your WG minutes,
16:07:44 <nigel> .. I'm unsure how clearly the situation was explained.
16:07:51 <nigel> .. Hopefully a repetition of things you already know.
16:08:02 <nigel> .. The Council has one power, which is, after being sufficiently informed,
16:08:19 <nigel> .. decide if the FO stands, or if they don't, in which case we overrule them and the Decision goes forward.
16:08:32 <nigel> .. That's the only thing we have the power to do.
16:08:37 <nigel> .. However while listening to everyone, we can observe opportunities for consensus,
16:08:50 <nigel> .. which is what we tried to do. We thought that some possibly ambiguous text can
16:08:57 <nigel> .. be adjusted if all parties agree.
16:09:09 <nigel> .. If that happens, the objection disappears and there's no role for the Council, which disbands.
16:09:23 <nigel> .. If you and the objectors fail to reach consensus then we're back to where we are.
16:09:35 <nigel> .. We thought we had an idea, you responded quickly, then it took time to get a response
16:09:47 <nigel> .. from the objectors. Possibly we should not have waited that long before
16:10:03 <nigel> .. observing that we have not reached consensus, and done what we're about to do.
16:10:09 <nigel> .. The Council knows that you're waiting.
16:10:26 <nigel> .. There's another part of what we're doing to prevent what happened this time or to future Councils.
16:10:38 <nigel> .. We are including the Council's team contact within the Council directly.
16:10:51 <nigel> .. It was designed for the Council to work in closed session with public conclusions.
16:11:03 <nigel> .. Initially the team council was not included, so there was nobody to tell us when we were not
16:11:12 <nigel> .. doing the right things, or doing things in time.
16:11:23 <nigel> .. The follow-up actions with the objectors did happen, but might have happened faster.
16:11:35 <nigel> .. The process has now been modified, so I would expect us to be more reactive in future.
16:11:38 <nigel> Present+ Atsushi
16:11:56 <nigel> .. I believe another thing that made you wait is that the Council started on Nov 3rd, and at that
16:12:02 <nigel> .. point you had already been waiting quite a while.
16:12:11 <nigel> .. The Process was clear about what needed to happen, but it is high level.
16:12:24 <nigel> .. It does not include operational details, like who should send what email to whom.
16:12:40 <nigel> .. It is not publicly documented but the Team has a private checklist which will be published on /Guide.
16:12:47 <nigel> .. They did not have that when this started.
16:13:04 <nigel> .. This also happened while we were trying to setup a Board of Directors which made the Team busier.
16:13:37 <nigel> .. So there were unusual bottlenecks that shouldn't occur in the future.
16:13:37 <nigel> .. I want to apologise on behalf of the Council for the time it has taken.
16:13:37 <nigel> .. We know timeliness is important.
16:14:04 <nigel> .. I am hopeful that within a couple of weeks we should be able to get back to you and the community
16:14:19 <nigel> .. with a decision. That's where we are. The status is that the suggestion we made did not lead to
16:14:29 <nigel> .. consensus, so we're where we are but with some additional information.
16:14:42 <nigel> Nigel: Thank you.
16:14:45 <pal> pal has joined #tt
16:14:49 <pal> q+
16:14:54 <nigel> ack pal
16:15:00 <nigel> Pierre: Quick question. Thanks for the summary.
16:15:06 <nigel> .. What is the new information that you just mentioned?
16:15:26 <nigel> .. If there's new information then the TTWG and other proponents might wish to respond.
16:15:36 <nigel> Florian: It's the notes from your session and the comments from the objector.
16:15:45 <nigel> .. I can't comment on what the Council members will think of it.
16:15:55 <nigel> .. The additional interaction might influence what people think, potentially.
16:16:07 <nigel> Pierre: It would be useful to know what new information will be considered by the Council.
16:16:19 <nigel> .. Going in, we knew what information had been submitted.
16:16:38 <nigel> .. Is it possible to get a list of the information that's new and relevant.
16:17:02 <nigel> Florian: The minutes of this WG;
16:17:07 <florian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-charters-review/2023Jan/0017.html
16:17:17 <nigel> .. the responses from the objectors to the changes you proposed. (see above)
16:17:22 <florian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-charters-review/2023Jan/0014.html
16:17:42 <nigel> .. Also ^ if you have access. It's member only. I can't change access levels.
16:17:58 <nigel> q+
16:18:07 <nigel> Pierre: Thank you
16:18:30 <nigel> Florian: Whether this is material or not will depend on the Council members' judgement.
16:18:46 <nigel> Pierre: Usually when a group makes a decision it's important to know all the input information.
16:18:57 <nigel> .. This group put a lot of effort into crafting input into the council.
16:19:06 <nigel> .. When is the deadline for providing updated information?
16:19:25 <nigel> Florian: The Council as convened Nov 3 has a deadline of 45 days to solve it or explain why it isn't solved.
16:19:39 <nigel> .. Amy provided an update in January, and she and I provided another update today.
16:19:48 <nigel> .. That's a requirement, when we're slow we need to tell you why.
16:20:07 <nigel> Pierre: I don't know if we want to update the group's input based on that response from Tantek.
16:20:19 <nigel> .. Tess just says they don't agree, but Tantek provides additional information.
16:20:29 <nigel> .. I don't know if we want to review the input provided.
16:20:45 <nigel> Florian: I would encourage you to say if you have any new response to Tantek.
16:21:05 <nigel> .. If you tell me now I'll convey as best I can. Or tell me later and point me to it.
16:21:14 <nigel> Pierre: That's why I wanted to know when you plan to meet next.
16:21:26 <nigel> .. I doubt it will change the input significantly but it might provide additional context.
16:21:52 <nigel> Florian: We're back to the original report based on the lack of consensus coming from the first response.
16:22:02 <nigel> .. I don't think the new information is especially informative.
16:22:12 <nigel> .. If you do want to clarify anything, that's always welcome.
16:22:19 <nigel> .. I don't think you want us to stop and wait.
16:22:33 <nigel> .. I expect us to meet early next week. Pencilled in, trying to confirm.
16:22:52 <nigel> q?
16:22:55 <nigel> ack ni
16:25:28 <florian> the suggest text is in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2022Nov/0008.html
16:27:40 <nigel> Nigel: Discrepancy between the written proposal and what we ended up doing
16:27:57 <nigel> .. based on conversation in our meeting. Looking for clarity in any further proposals so we have
16:28:26 <nigel> .. more certainty.
16:28:44 <nigel> Florian: I understand.
16:28:58 <pal> q+
16:29:47 <nigel> Nigel: Other question: you mentioned Tantek. It's unclear to us whether Tantek / Mozilla's objection
16:29:55 <nigel> .. needs to be resolved based on the timing of its submission.
16:30:09 <nigel> Florian: As a process reader / editor, my reading is that anybody can object to any decision any time.
16:30:21 <nigel> .. There are well guided times for doing so, but there are no limitations to the timing.
16:30:38 <nigel> .. If an objection happens after a key point, you're talking about undoing something rather than doing
16:30:48 <nigel> .. something different. It is preferable to talk early rather than later.
16:31:01 <nigel> .. Given that Mozilla talked before the Charter was approved, we have to take notice of it.
16:31:12 <nigel> .. It still holds as an objection, is my personal take on the Process.
16:31:42 <nigel> Nigel: You may know that we did not discuss with Mozilla because we were guided that it did not hold.
16:31:54 <nigel> Florian: I did notice that in the report, and that's unfortunate.
16:32:10 <nigel> .. This makes me think that maybe a Process consultancy CG for answering interpretation questions
16:32:15 <nigel> .. about the Process could be helpful.
16:32:30 <nigel> .. I would say in general feedback from everyone always needs to be addressed.
16:32:54 <nigel> .. The less specific and later, the less you need to worry about it.
16:33:01 <nigel> q?
16:33:06 <nigel> ack pal
16:33:20 <nigel> Pierre: Just reading Tantek's reply to the member charter review,
16:33:41 <nigel> .. I want to make sure of, and I think it's clear in the Team Report,
16:33:55 <nigel> .. Tantek, I think consistently, indicates that he's very concerned that there
16:34:11 <nigel> .. would be an attempt to proceed to Rec with solely a single open source implementation.
16:34:17 <nigel> .. I think it's clear that's not the TTWG plan.
16:34:36 <nigel> .. The plan is at least one validator but also content produced by a number of other independent parties.
16:34:45 <nigel> Nigel: IMSC-HRM specifically?
16:34:48 <nigel> Pierre: Yes correct.
16:34:55 <nigel> Florian: I think that point has been conveyed.
16:35:15 <nigel> .. What may be less clear (speaking for myself) is if you have a validator
16:35:29 <nigel> .. and an open source implementation or several validators or several pieces of content which of
16:35:41 <nigel> .. these factors do you intend to apply to what sort of things. [thinks]
16:35:54 <nigel> .. I think it's a different situation. A "silly" example out of context.
16:36:11 <nigel> .. Imagine we're talking about a hypothetical variant of HTML, that requires that every image
16:36:25 <nigel> .. element contains a descendant element with an alternate text.
16:36:39 <nigel> .. Then authors could not write a conformant document because no child of image is permitted.
16:36:49 <nigel> .. They would have to use an attribute insteda.
16:36:57 <atai> q+
16:37:12 <nigel> .. You would have to have an authoring requirement that you demonstrate to be implementable.
16:37:26 <nigel> .. It is a different situation to have a consuming and a producing implementation exchanging
16:37:32 <nigel> .. content but only having a single one of each.
16:37:43 <nigel> .. I don't want to say what is acceptable, just that these are two different situations
16:37:54 <nigel> .. and I'm not clear which one of these you intend.
16:38:08 <nigel> Pierre: My personal plan with IMSC-HRM, which I think is in the Team Report....
16:38:21 <nigel> .. IMSC-HRM is a content spec, and the document has been updated to make it clear.
16:38:34 <nigel> .. The plan that we have is to get content from multiple independent sources, to use your example,
16:38:50 <nigel> .. that these sources believe are valid and conformant, and confirm that their expectations are correct.
16:39:05 <nigel> .. - according to the model in the specification, using the open source tool to make that determination.
16:39:15 <nigel> Florian: The success criteria of the Charter apply to all of the deliverables.
16:39:31 <nigel> .. Some of the deliverables include a rendering model. If you're talking about
16:39:44 <nigel> .. specification requirements that only talk about exchanging data, then I suppose a producer and
16:39:56 <nigel> .. a consumer are two implementations, but they are not two implementations of rendering data.
16:40:11 <nigel> Pierre: Correct. Just to roll back the clock, in my mind the reason the wording in the proposed Charter
16:40:28 <nigel> .. was crafted was to give TTWG the flexibility to pick the exit criteria that best match the type of specification,
16:40:44 <nigel> .. because TTWG has different types. I don't think the plan is to change the criteria for specs that are
16:40:54 <nigel> .. for instance renderer specs, or have a defined presentation engine.
16:41:11 <nigel> .. Again, going back in time, the motivation for the flexible language in the Charter, while staying
16:41:26 <nigel> .. in the spirit of the process, was to give exit criteria that match the needs of the spec.
16:41:48 <nigel> Florian: What sounds like a good idea to the Council, and the objectors, the Council previously thought
16:41:57 <nigel> .. that the previous proposal would give enough flexibility.
16:42:22 <nigel> .. Different requirements for different kinds of specification. You'd be able to pick any two that
16:42:26 <nigel> .. corresponded to that requirement.
16:42:42 <nigel> Pierre: That's exactly the spirit of how the TTWG charter was crafted. precisely for that flexibility,
16:42:48 <nigel> .. not to avoid having to demonstrate interop.
16:42:50 <nigel> Nigel: Yes
16:43:04 <nigel> Florian: So far the Council has not come up with any determination in either direction.
16:43:42 <nigel> Pierre: Florian. what you just said a few seconds ago, if you feel this is well understood within the council,
16:43:46 <nigel> .. I don't think further input is needed.
16:44:12 <nigel> Florian: A meta-question: do you immediately publish minutes?
16:44:18 <nigel> Nigel: Yes, usually soon after the meeting.
16:44:26 <nigel> Florian: I'll review the log straight after then.
16:44:30 <nigel> Nigel: Thank you
16:44:48 <nigel> Andreas: Going back to your comment Florian that you understood that one word made the difference
16:45:03 <nigel> .. to the Objector. I'm not sure if I'm too simplistic, but if for the group this word didn't make the
16:45:23 <nigel> .. difference then the logical conclusion is that inserting the word would be acceptable for that objector?
16:45:36 <nigel> Florian: I believe Tess has indicated that inserting that word would be okay for Apple, but not that
16:45:40 <nigel> .. it would be okay for Mozilla.
16:45:56 <nigel> Andreas: Could we say this is possible, so that we would satisfy at least one objector?
16:46:58 <nigel> Nigel: I think we didn't quite understand it, actually.
16:47:13 <nigel> .. We didn't understand how content could be produced without a content producing implementation.
16:47:42 <nigel> Gary: I think implementation by itself disambiguates it from just a person writing content.
16:47:59 <nigel> .. I think the point was to exclude just a person creating the content.
16:48:24 <nigel> .. I'm not sure what Tess thinks or meant, that's my interpretation.
16:49:29 <nigel> Nigel: When we discussed it we did consider these points. In particular, for a content specification,
16:49:46 <nigel> .. content itself is the thing that is a factor of verification.
16:50:01 <nigel> Florian: I believe you made that point. Thank you for remaking these points, hopefully you've said them
16:50:15 <nigel> .. in a different way and the additional phrasing might bring clarity to some people if they didn't have it before.
16:50:53 <nigel> Nigel: Did I answer your question Andreas?
16:51:09 <nigel> Andreas: I'm not sure - my question is if the WG could agree to put the phrase in - do you think the answer is no?
16:51:41 <nigel> Nigel: I think we said no before but if people want to accept it now then we can reconsider.
16:51:58 <nigel> Gary: I don't think we can know if the objectors would accept it anyway.
16:52:07 <nigel> .. That ties in to the outcome of the Council: will it be concrete?
16:52:31 <nigel> Florian: Unless all objections go away then we still need to decide if any objections are upheld.
16:52:43 <nigel> .. Unless you want to try to reach consensus, I think we should go ahead in the Council.
16:52:59 <nigel> Pierre: My attempts to discuss this and come to consensus have been unsuccessful over the months.
16:53:37 <nigel> Nigel: I think the Process should give the council greater powers than uphold or reject - they should be
16:53:43 <nigel> .. able to say "This is how it's going to be".
16:53:49 <nigel> Pierre: For a different group.
16:54:02 <nigel> Florian: That's been discussed. If we find better ways, suggestions are always welcome for
16:54:06 <nigel> .. improvements to the Process.
16:54:21 <nigel> .. The Council is not the Director, and the Director had many more powers that he could use at any time.
16:54:40 <nigel> .. Including resolving FOs. If we want the Council to be able to do more then we need to give it more powers.
16:54:49 <nigel> .. That's one of the differences compared to the Director.
16:56:00 <florian> s/which made things worse/which didn't help/
16:56:05 <nigel> Topic: Defining a Registry #241 and #243
16:56:18 <nigel> Nigel: As discussed previously, I've drafted a boilerplate Registry definition and
16:56:21 <florian> s/to recognise that she did not have/to recognise that they did not have/
16:56:41 <nigel> .. opened a pull request, w3c/ttwg#243 for review.
16:56:43 <Github> https://github.com/w3c/ttwg/pull/243 : Draft boilerplate text
16:56:48 <nigel> .. Thank you Atsushi for your comments.
16:56:57 <nigel> .. Please everyone else take a look and add your comments to the PR.
16:57:13 <nigel> .. Any immediate questions about it?
16:57:17 <nigel> group: none
16:57:28 <nigel> Topic: IMSC-HRM
16:57:55 <nigel> Nigel: Do any of the open issues on IMSC-HRM block FPWD?
16:58:06 <nigel> Pierre: I think we were going to CR not FPWD.
16:58:10 <nigel> Nigel: Sorry my mistake.
16:58:21 <nigel> Pierre: We have a CR, and the action item is to craft a test plan, which will depend
16:58:27 <florian> s/Initially the team council was/Initially the team contact was/
16:58:35 <nigel> .. to some extent on the result of the Council, including if they cancel the entire project.
16:58:55 <nigel> Pierre: The FPWD was published back in November 2021.
16:59:00 <florian> s/there was nobody to tell us/there was nobody other than ourselves to tell us/
16:59:19 <nigel> Nigel: OK, then any open issues that need to be resolved before CR?
16:59:32 <nigel> Pierre: There's one that's scheduled for CR1 milestone, which is about references.
16:59:42 <nigel> .. The last on the thread is a suggestion from me to you in December.
16:59:47 <nigel> Nigel: Yes there's an action on me.
16:59:48 <florian> s/It is not publicly documented but the/It is not yet publicly documented but the/
16:59:53 <nigel> Pierre: None of the other issues are labelled CR.
17:00:15 <nigel> .. We did do a triage which resulted in your asking for the TAG review.
17:00:30 <nigel> Nigel: Yes, which hasn't concluded yet.
17:00:31 <florian> s/we were trying to setup a Board of Directors/W3C was trying to setup a Board of Directors and a Legal Entity/
17:00:41 <nigel> Pierre: I thought there was a suggestion to turn it into a Note.
17:00:52 <nigel> .. I don't think there were technical comments.
17:00:59 <nigel> Nigel: I don't think they did a technical review.
17:01:09 <nigel> .. The review issue is still open. I don't think they're done.
17:01:24 <nigel> Pierre: As far as I know the only action item that's blocking is creating a test plan.
17:02:06 <pal> Pierre: (we have a draft test plan available)
17:02:11 <nigel> Topic: AOB - DST
17:02:17 <florian> s/ session and the comments from the objector/ session and the comments from the objectors in response to the changes you proposed to accept/
17:02:24 <nigel> Nigel: Given the time, suggest Chairs propose something offline
17:02:27 <nigel> Gary: [nods]
17:02:44 <nigel> Topic: Meeting close
17:03:04 <nigel> Nigel: Thanks everyone, see you next time, hopefully at the correct hour. [adjourns meeting]
17:03:13 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:03:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:03:42 <florian> s/January, and she and I provided/January, and they and I provided/
17:08:38 <florian> s/the suggest text is in/There seems to be some confusion as to exactly what text the council suggested. The suggest text is in/
17:09:29 <florian> s/happens after a key point/happens after a decision has already been applied/
17:12:59 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:13:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:17:51 <florian> s/the less you need to worry about it./the less you need to worry about it, but even then issues need to be addressed./
17:19:13 <florian> s/requires that every image/requires authors to write document so that that every image/
17:21:41 <florian> s/What sounds like a good idea to the Council, and the objectors/What sounds like a good idea to the Council, and the objectors may be different/
17:22:43 <florian> s/inserting that word would be/inserting that word would have been/
17:23:22 <atai> atai has joined #tt
17:24:17 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:24:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:42:52 <nigel> scribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
17:43:00 <nigel> zakim, end meeting
17:43:00 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Florian, Nigel, Andreas, Pierre, Gary, Atsushi
17:43:02 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
17:43:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-tt-minutes.html Zakim
17:43:10 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, nigel; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:43:10 <Zakim> Zakim has left #tt
17:43:20 <nigel> Regrets: Cyril
17:43:28 <nigel> rrsagent, make minutes
17:43:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/03/02-tt-minutes.html nigel
17:43:59 <nigel> rrsagent, excuse us
17:43:59 <RRSAgent> I see no action items