- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:37:25 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Maire, my view of the MS situation is that there may be 3 completely different situations in the group: - There's really no desire among other members to pick this up (and a strong desire not to) - There's a really strong desire among other members to pick this up - There's enough doubt about it that we need to discuss further how to dispose of it Until we actually talk about it, we do not know where we are; if we're already in one of the 2 first states, we don't have to discuss any more whether or not we pick this up; if we're in the 3rd state, I think you're right - we need a whole meeting to discuss it. But until we have that conversation, we haven't had that conversation. I think 25 mins is enough to figure out something of where we are among the 3 states above (one subset of the first one is that there's a desire to pick some of the features of the proposal up for integration a little bit down the road, but keep the first steps on the road unchanged - I think that's what Justin's discussing with Martin just now). But both devoting a whole meeting to a proposal we may not see any desire to discuss and not talking about the "elephant in the room" at all seemed wrong to me - so this proposed agenda is what we came up with. On 08/26/2012 04:53 PM, Maire Reavy wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > I agree with Cullen's comments below. > > My big concern (and my reason for sending this email) is that this > agenda doesn't seem very helpful in terms of resolving the issues that > are blocking implementation. 10 minutes isn't really enough to make > true progress, so we'll end up just skimming over each issue and not > resolving anything. > > From my perspective, the elephant in the room is the Microsoft > proposal. Having a total of 25 minutes allocated to it with only 10 > minutes for discussion can't possibly do anything to alleviate the > uncertainty about whether this is a discussion the WG intends to > entertain. If we are to have a discussion about that proposal, we > should instead allocate an entire session to it. > > Alternately, if we aren't going to have a real discussion about the MS > proposal, then we should prioritize the remaining 6 issues in terms > of how much they are blocking implementation and devote enough time > to the high priority ones to actually resolve them. *This* (discussing > the remaining 6 issues that are blocking implementation in prioritized > order) is what I would prefer to do for this Tuesday's telco. > > The current agenda seems like a compromise that doesn't let us make > enough real forward progress on anything. > > Thanks, > Maire > > > On 8/21/2012 1:31 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: >> bunch of points inline … >> >> On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:56 , Stefan Hakansson LK wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> this is the chair's first proposal for agenda items for the Tuesday >>> Aug 28 Telco. Please give us feedback! >>> >>> 1. Welcome, scribe >>> 2. Approve minutes >>> 3. MS’ CU-WebRTC proposal >>> Presentation >>> Questions and comments >> Last I heard Google and Microsoft were working on some sort of joint >> proposal. I'd rather wait to see that before spending time on this so >> I'm not in favor of this being on the agenda yet. However, if it is >> going to be on the agenda, we need enough time to answer the >> questions that will come up. I imagine that means more or less a 10 >> minute presentation filled by questions for a few hours. >> >>> 4. Milestones and progress plan >>> Whether IdP API is part of V1 >>> Whether Data Channel is part of V1 >> I'm pretty shocked to see you proposing that we remove the spec all >> the things Firefox does that Chrome has not yet implemented. The WG >> has previously agreed to do these and I don't think that we are yet >> at the right time or place to start looking at things to remove from >> the spec. I'm sure at some point it will be the right time to ask the >> WG what can be removed but not yet - at that point I think the right >> thing to do will be to ask what is not needed and see what we can >> develop consensus to remove. Needless to say I strongly object to >> these being on the agenda as I think the conversation is a waste of >> time at this point. >> >> >>> Whether any other major mods to the specs are needed >> Yes, many major changes to the spec are needed. The WG has not even >> started dealing with error handling in any serious way. When and how >> many of the vents happened is still pretty much undefined. >>> Whether dates are realistic, given resolution of the items >>> above >> It's not even worth discussing the dates when the first thing on the >> agenda is if we should through out all the work we have done so far. >> >> >>> 5. Stats API - accept to include in spec >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Jun/0239.html >> yes should be on agenda >> >>> 6. IdP - possibly >> yes should be on agenda >> >>> 7. DTMF API - accept to move to PC and use 4-arg form >> yes should be on agenda >> >>> 8. JS API for interacting with congestion control >>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861 >> yes should be on agenda >> >>> 9. ICE state machine reporting up state (Cullen) >> I will send a summary of where we are on this to the list before the >> meeting. I'd rather see this higher up the agenda as I think this is >> something we need to sort out soon and I'm afraid we will not get to >> it on this call. >> >> >>> //Stefan for chairs >>> >> > >
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2012 17:37:50 UTC