W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:05:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBN4BKbW+HBBYhNtP44q0XrZ3GAEO7xXjuxhQ_YGPqPXQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:58 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  On 23/07/2013 11:59 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>     We need more frequent webrtc-public IRC meetings
>  I (and I suspect others) prefer con calls to IRC meetings. I don't think
> this presents an undue
> barrier to entry.
>     No problem. Please announce these on webrtc-public with instructions
> on how to join and we will happily meet you there.

Conference calls *are* announced on webrtc-public. For instance:


How do you think the WG members find out about them.

>   and more Web Developer representation (ideally unaffiliated with any
>> business interest). A recurring theme I keep on bringing up is that we have
>> an insufficient number of active Web Developers in the Working Group and
>> official meetings. I've asked Stefan recently (I don't think he's had the
>> chance to respond yet) and I'll ask you the same: what is the Working
>> Group's plan to rectify this?
>  I'm not sure what you suggest we do. This is a volunteer effort and the
> list
> is open to anyone. That said, this seems to me to be a fairly
> representative
> WG in terms of non-company engagement when compared to the other
> two W3C WGs I am involved in (WebAppSec and peripherally WebCrypto).
>  Both Google and Mozilla have mailing lists where there is active
> discussion
> from Web Developers and I think the people from both organizations try to
> take that feedback onboard. of course that feedback still gets filtered
> through the representatives from those organizations, but there's nothing
> stopping developers from posting directly here.
>     The solution I am leaning towards is divorcing WebRTC from Telecoms
> and Web Developers. This sounds like the easiest solution. In that case I
> would expect Browser Vendors to agree to a common API that is interoperable
> across all browsers and (key point!) does not unduly influence design
> decisions of APIs placed on top of it. From a decision-making process point
> of view, things should move a lot faster because each one of us will be
> negotiating with similarly-minded players.

Nothing is stopping you from proposing some new JS API in another
forum. This WG is about deciding the API that's implemented in the browser.

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 05:06:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 9 October 2019 15:15:09 UTC