W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2011

[Minutes] Call 2011-08-31

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:09:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5E78DB.4010300@w3.org>
To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>

The minutes of today's call are available at:

... and copied as raw text below.


Web Real-Time Communications Working Group Teleconference

31 Aug 2011


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Aug/0128.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/31-webrtc-irc


           Dan_Burnett, Francois_Daoust, Stefan_Hakansson,
           Neil_Stratford, Harald_Alvestrand, Narm_Gadiraju,
           Adam_Berkgvist, Dan_Druta, Cary_Bran, [Mozilla],




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Actions from Quebec meeting
          2. [6]Requirements document
          3. [7]AOB
      * [8]Summary of Action Items

    Stefan: anything to add to the agenda?

    [none heard]

Actions from Quebec meeting

    Stefan: Dan to review requirements and send comments to list

    DanBurnett: Haven't done that, should be able to do so by next week.

    Stefan: next one on Cullen. He sent some initial text. I think we
    should keep it open while we get more discussion.
    ... next one on editor's draft

    DanBurnett: I'm sure people have noticed we have a draft now, we
    started from an extract from the WhatWG spec. There has been some
    discussion on the mailing-list since then.
    ... Some consensus decisions for changes.

    DanBurnett: intent from editors is to propose changes to the spec
    based on these discussions to align the spec with the discussions
    we've had.
    ... Anant has some proposal to remove text based on implementation
    ... Once the document is where we believe the discussion is, we
    expect the discussion to continue on the mailing-list.
    ... When there is rough consensus about something, the editors will
    move it to the spec.
    ... We're trying to be roughly informal, on purpose.
    ... We suggest that people continue to use the mailing-list right
    ... At some point later in the process, when we get into more
    details, it may make sense to track things more precisely through
    some Tracker tool or Bugzilla instance.

    Harald: seems reasonable to me.
    ... So idea is to check threads on the mailing-list and bring
    changes when you don't hear anyone against it.

    DanBurnett: Right.

    Stefan: schedule for updates?

    DanBurnett: no schedule set yet. Many changes are likely to make it
    to the spec here.
    ... The intent is that there will be faster releases at least
    initially. If that's not the case, we'll need to ensure that things
    happen on timely basis.
    ... You will not see anything this week. Cullen has sent an email
    and will send a bunch more next week, supposedly representing the
    current consensus.

    <burn> First email from Cullen:

       [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Aug/0132.html

    DanBurnett: I'm asking people to reply to these emails if they have

    Harald: OK, let's go ahead with that plan.

    Francois: would keep FPWD deadline in mind, was to be end of

    DanBurnett: right, updated spec that represents the current
    consensus of the group could be a good FPWD.
    ... I'm optimistic we can put it forward for end of September.

Requirements document

    Stefan: Published requirements document, a couple of comments,
    waiting for comments from Dan.
    ... Not ideal to have different documents for use cases and
    requirements, as they may come out of sync.

    -> [10]http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc_reqs.html WebRTC

      [10] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc_reqs.html

    Stefan: don't know how to deal with this, perhaps stick to one
    document that has use cases and requirements, which could be the
    IETF one.
    ... Would anyone object to reverting to only one document?

    Justin: As soon as we have common use cases, having just one
    document sounds like the right thing to me.

    <burn> I believe Justin said one document for use cases, but he
    didn't mention requirements

    <juberti> I am OK with a single set of requirements too

    Stefan: for ease of editing, proposal is to keep everything

    DanBurnett: so suggestion is to stick to one use cases and
    requirements doc right now for ease of editing, and resolve later if
    we split them to have a W3C doc.

    Stefan: right.

    DanBurnett: Are you planning to publish an update?

    Stefan: I should be able to publish an update to the IETF doc

    DanBurnett: Just make sure to forward an announcement to
    public-webrtc when you publish a new draft as that does not happen

    Stefan: yes, good point.


    Stefan: reasonable to have a phone call between now and next F2F in

    DanBurnett: I think it makes sense to have one call by TPAC.

    [discussion on room at TPAC, reserved on Monday/Tuesday]

    Stefan: how long is F2F meeting?

    Francois: room is reserved for 2 days, there's an AC meeting
    starting on Tuesday afternoon, we may adjourn earlier. Up to us!

    Stefan: ok, we'll want to go into details about how we're going to
    use that time.
    ... Should review spec into details.

    Harald: Now you should go back to the mailing-list and reply to
    ... or raise other topics.

    [Call adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 18:09:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:25 UTC