W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Adding "Media Capture Depth Stream Extensions" as TF deliverable

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:48:00 +0200
Message-ID: <1403689680.14048.129.camel@cumulustier>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: Stefan Håkansson <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Le vendredi 20 juin 2014 à 12:39 +0000, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) a
écrit :
> I support this work but I would much rather see this done in a WG
> instead of a TF. The approval processes for documents in TF is very
> messy and effectively needs to be approved by both the WG. Unless
> there is a really good reason to do it in a TF instead of of a WG, a
> WG is better. I realize that it got proposed to this TF just because
> this is where GUM is but is there any good reason it could not be done
> in a WG ?

For clarity sake, this Task Force is only the name we give to the union
of the WebRTC and Device APIs Working Group, union of which that can
only work at the intersection of the two charters.

There is some process overhead to running things in a union (as you say,
getting double approvals for moving forward); but there are also
* you get contributions (both at the tech and IPR level) from a broader
set of interested parties,
* you raise the chances that the resulting spec covers the needs of a
broader community

In the particular case of this task force, getting the people already
interested enough in gUM to be on this list to also participate and
review what would essentially be the first gUM extension sounds like a
good thing.

Now, should the process overheads become too costly, we could revisit
that decision; but I would rather we make the overhead less costly :)

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 09:48:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:24:48 UTC