Re: Announce CfC for moving mediacapture-main to CR

Two thoughts:
1. Typically you only move to CR when you are pretty sure there will be no
more substantive changes.  I am almost convinced that's the case :)
2. CR is also a call for implementations, usually based on a test suite.
Is the test suite completely ready?  I haven't been directly following that
but plan to soon; however, I got the impression we are not yet ready.
In particular, the tests I find [1] look good but appear to be far fewer in
number than I would guess we have normative statements for in the spec.
The issue here is that a CR period normally has a defined end by when the
Implementation Reports need to be in, something difficult to do if the test
suite is not yet complete.

I do absolutely think it is time to work on the wording for the Call for
Implementations, meaning that we work out just exactly what we expect to
receive from implementers in the form of an Implementation Report.  If this
happened and I missed it, please feel free to point me in the right
direction.

-- dan

[1]
https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/mediacapture-streams

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Dan is in the process of making a new Editor's draft which incorporates
> the PRs #319 and #330.
>
> The chairs would like to announce a CfC to the TF (which will then I
> suppose have to be cascaded to the parent WebRTC and DAP WGs) to request
> a transition to Candidate Recommendation.
>
> We know there are still some open Issues, but we think they are all
> solvable (something we would also say in the CfC mail).
>
> Does any of the editors see a problem with moving forward in this way?
>
> Stefan for the chairs
>
>