- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 18:55:46 +0100
- To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
- CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Personal opinions...... On 01/18/2015 04:38 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > This WG is woefully behind on every milestone and many people would argue is biting off far more than it can chew. I would put this a bit differently - the WG has proved very bad at estimating when it could finish the work it has taken on. At multiple times people (including me) have said things like "we have to finish this by time X otherwise we will be too late", and tried to plan accordingly. In hindsight, that was a mistake. > Once the discussion of 1.1 starts happing I believe it will overwhelm many other things including any ongoing work on 1.0. For that reason I dont' believe we should start the low level / object oriented API discussions until after we have WebRTC 1.0 complete. Substantially agree, but with one important proviso: Discussion of 1.1 WILL happen - in fact it IS happening. The only thing we can try to influence is the forum and the formal status - not whether or not it is happening. > > Specifically I would like the text in > > The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers is considered stable enough, consider working on a new set of APIsfor real-time communication. > > changed to > > The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers is finished (at CR), the consider working on a new set of low level object oriented APIs for real-time communication. The wording was chosen to give ourselves wiggle room to "do what's right". I have never taken an API spec from PR to CR, so I have very little insight in how much of the time spent there is actual work that should be blocking other things, and how much is "waiting for someone to cross the last T". I'd like to hear comments from others on whether "considered stable enough" or "finished (at CR)" is the more reasonable milestone for "the WG will try to encompass the 1.1 work". > > > The second issue is all the documents that are joint work with with the DeviceWG. Having theses as joint work substantial complicates the issues of resolving issues near the end the draft. It's not even really clear what would happen if the two WG had conflicting views on how to resolve an issue in the draft. Because of this I do not think theses should be spread across two WG unless there is a specific reason to do so. I know that the reasons we originally did this have changed - both Microsoft and qualcom and listed on the webrtc members page thought I don't know their actual status - so it is not clear we should follow the same path with new specifications. So far, we have not encountered this problem. If splitting the work into two fora makes sense at all, I see no reason to change our current setup - and if we have two fora, the document split we have seems to make sense for those fora. > > > Thanks, Cullen > > > > >> On Jan 15, 2015, at 3:36 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >> >> Dear Working Group participants, >> >> As you may know, the charter of the WebRTC Working Group is expiring at >> the end of next month (February 2015), after having been extended for >> two years in February 2013. >> >> The Working Group chairs feel that the group’s charter should be renewed >> rather than just extended this time around. Renewing it means we can >> change the text of the charter to make it reflect more accurately our >> current work, and gives a chance to W3C Members to review that work 4 >> years after it initially started. It is also an opportunity to list >> explicit new directions the work might go into. >> >> The chairs and staff contact have thus developed a new draft charter for >> the group: >> http://w3c.github.io/webrtc-charter/webrtc-charter.html >> >> The changes it brings to the charter compared to our current charter can >> be reviewed via the commits made on github: >> https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-charter/commits/gh-pages >> >> or through the diff between the two documents: >> >> http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2011%2F04%2Fwebrtc-charter.html&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebrtc-charter%2Fwebrtc-charter.html >> >> At a high level, these changes consist of: >> * making our current list of deliverables explicit and assign estimated >> dates of their progress on the Recommendation track >> * adding a mention of a WebRTC Next Generation API >> * updating the list of dependencies to other groups from which we will >> be seeking reviews of our work >> >> Given that our current charter expires at the end of February, and given >> the required time to renew a charter (which includes review by the W3C >> management followed by a review by the W3C Advisory Committee), we would >> like to proceed with the renewal process as soon as possible. >> >> As such, and unless a WG participant requires more time, we would like >> to ask for review and comments before end of next week (January 23rd). >> >> Given that the charter is on github, suggestions of changes as pull >> requests would be welcomed; except for minor editorial corrections, >> these suggestions need to be brought to this list for discussion to >> ensure all the group participants are aware of potential additional changes. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Harald & Stefan as Chairs >> >> -- >> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark. >> >> >> -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2015 17:56:19 UTC