W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

RE: First agenda proposal webrtc telco

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:22:26 -0700
Message-ID: <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD81069D83E2@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "Stefan Hakansson LK" <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Telcos are better than the list for figuring out what the issue really
is.  It can take a week's worth of emails to bring the same amount of
clarity that you can get in 15 minutes on a telco. (And after the first
3 emails, the comments are nested so deeply that you can't find what the
writer said, anyways.)   Telcos are also good for forcing decisions.  In
other W3C groups that I have worked in, we've had some success
announcing an agenda item for a call:  "Make a decision on X".  People
can send their opinions in ahead of time, or speak on the call.  

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 10:08 AM
To: Stefan Hakansson LK
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: First agenda proposal webrtc telco

On Aug 26, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Stefan Hakansson LK
<stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> But I want to pick up the other part of your message: issues that
block implementation. Such info is extremely  valuable and can really
help moving the spec in the right direction.
> I think it would be very valuable if you could share with the WG the
list of issues that block implementation.

Google folks told me the ICE state stuff not being in the spec ( and
some other things ) were blocking their ability to check in code. 

> It is a correct observation that we're squeezing in many topics, and
give short time to each of them. In part this comes from feedback given
(by amongst others Mozilla) when the WG charter was out for AC review
saying that they prefer no telcos, but to do all discussion on the list.
So we've had a habit of quite few telcos, and at the telcos more touch
on the topics but moving the in depth discussion to the list.

Obviously I prefer the list where that works, but for hard things, we
need rapid interactive conversations to resolve the issues. 

> Perhaps we should change this; instead have more frequent telcos with
fewer topic which we cover in depth. I would certainly be open for that
if the WG (and my co-chair) thinks it is a good idea. And it would be
natural to focus on covering the issues (in priority order) that block
implementation in those meetings.

I think we could survive a few more meetings but not too many more. I
think many of the people working on this feel like all they ever do is
prep material for the next standards meeting and never have time to
actually do the standards work. We don't need a lot more meetings - we
need to have productive meetings. So far many of the meetings have the
form of something is discussed for 20 minutes then no decisions is made.
The next time we start right back where we were at the beginning of the
previous 20 minute discussion. If we want to finnish this, the meetings
need to pick topics we can come to a definitive conclusion on and drive
them to conclusion.
Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 14:22:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:29 UTC