Re: Announce CfC for moving mediacapture-main to CR

Yes and yes.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Thanks Dan.
>
> I take your comment as you think the draft itself is in good enough
> shape to request a transition to CR, but we need to think about how we
> will document how "adequate implementation experience will be
> demonstrated" (quoted from the process document). I think that is a good
> comment, and I think Dom is looking into it.
>
> Stefan
>
> On 06/04/16 12:35, Daniel Burnett wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto: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
> >
> >
>
>