- From: Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@quicinc.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:18:05 +0000
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
> That's convoluted. I don't like it (I don't think it's sufficient for the purpose, and is not necessary to include in this verision of the spec), so there's certainly controversy. I believe you alone are laying out the criteria as to what is controversial and what is not. > Yes, that was proposed. And that feature did not make it into what's incorporated in the current spec. The notes from the February meeting I pointed you at give some background for that decision. What background? You can look at the meeting notes (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013Feb/0034.html) and discern that there was a show of hands taken on individual constraints. There was no indication of what the actual company-by-company vote was. For all I know, more than one person from a given company may have been raising their hands (maybe even persons representing companies who are not members of the W3C - remember that it was a joint IETF meeting). There was no debate on 'zoom' specifically. This was not what I consider any kind of debate or binding decision. > You don't have to have a bug open to present something to the mailing list. Make your case first; afterwards we can file the bug, if the group indicates a desire to adopt. Fine with me. I'll put something forward to the list. -Giri -----Original Message----- From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 3:21 PM To: Mandyam, Giridhar; public-media-capture@w3.org Subject: Re: [Bug 23220] Add 'zoom' constraint to VideoStreamTrack On 09/29/2013 01:59 AM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote: > You have also stated separately that if a bug has been out and not debated for 6 days, that the bug is 'uncontroversial' - see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013Sep/0180.html. Bug 23220 was out for slightly longer without any debate. I could use your logic to come to the conclusion that bug 23220 is 'uncontroversial', but I'll settle to merely use your comments on bug 23263 as an example of what I believe is inconsistency on your part. That's convoluted. I don't like it (I don't think it's sufficient for the purpose, and is not necessary to include in this verision of the spec), so there's certainly controversy. > > And I do not believe this is a case of "one person has said that he wants in the spec": see https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/proposals/SettingsAPI_proposal_v6.html#changing-zoom-in-response-to-user-input. Yes, that was proposed. And that feature did not make it into what's incorporated in the current spec. The notes from the February meeting I pointed you at give some background for that decision. > > I will request that you leave the bug unresolved for now and allow me to present a case to the mailing list. Otherwise I will re-file the bug, because I do think this needs to be resolved before last call. You don't have to have a bug open to present something to the mailing list. Make your case first; afterwards we can file the bug, if the group indicates a desire to adopt. > > -Giri > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 2:47 PM > To: public-media-capture@w3.org > Subject: Re: [Bug 23220] Add 'zoom' constraint to VideoStreamTrack > > On 09/27/2013 06:08 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote: >> I will refile this bug. I think it is inappropriate for the chair to >> arbitrarily close bugs filed by group members based on his own >> opinion, and I believe the explanation is provided is not sufficient > Giri, you have failed to get support for your position. > > Please focus on showing that there is support in the group for adding zoom to *version 1.0 of the spec*. At the moment, all that is clear is that you want it. > > We are not using open bugs in the bug tracker to keep track of all the ideas that one person has said that he wants in the spec; we're using it to keep track of where the spec needs to be modified before we can issue a WG Last Call on version 1.0. > > >> -Giri >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bugzilla@jessica.w3.org [mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org] >> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 5:37 AM >> To: public-media-capture@w3.org >> Subject: [Bug 23220] Add 'zoom' constraint to VideoStreamTrack >> >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23220 >> >> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Status|NEW |RESOLVED >> CC| |harald@alvestrand.no >> Resolution|--- |LATER >> >> --- Comment #1 from Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> --- Closing as "wontfix" - the way we manipulate settings that a) are unique to the device and b) can't be simply turned on and off is a bigger subject that we shouldn't expect to tackle in the 1.0 version of the spec. >> >> There is some discussion of pan/tilt/zoom in the minutes from the Feb 5-7 interim meeting. >> >> -- >> You are receiving this mail because: >> You are on the CC list for the bug. >> You are the assignee for the bug. >> > -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 00:18:35 UTC