Re: Proposed amendments to WebRTC charter

Because IETF is coming up, it's going to take me a while to get to a
detailed
response, so I wanted to register now that I don't consider these changes
to be OK to avoid the appearance that silence == consent.

Expect something more detailed in the next week.

-Ekr


On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As you may be aware, our proposed new WebRTC charter received formal
> objections during the Advisory Committee review. Since these objections
> were made in a Member-confidential setting, I'm not at liberty to give too
> much detail about them, but they essentially focused on our proposal to
> include a WebRTC-NG deliverable when the group hasn't reached LC for any of
> its current deliverables. You can find more about the objections at
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webrtc-2015/results
>
> Working with the Chairs and the objectors, I've proposed an updated
> charter that removes the -NG deliverable, adds a liaison to the ORTC CG,
> and offers clarifications on our mode of work; the said charter and the
> diff to the one that was sent for AC Review are attached to this message.
> The said updated charter was acceptable to the objectors.
>
> My expectations with this new charter would be that we make use of the
> proposed liaison to the ORTC group to develop a common understanding in the
> upcoming months, leading to a rechartering that includes an -NG converged
> deliverable once WebRTC 1.0 reaches stability and interop.
>
> I have been consulting the AC Representatives that reviewed our original
> proposed charter, and I was asked to bring these modifications to the group
> for discussion before bringing the charter to W3C Director approval.
>
> As an aside, since formally speaking this group is out of charter since
> the beginning of this month, depending on our pace of convergence on this
> proposal, I might have to request an extension of our expired charter to
> the Director to allow us to continue publishing technical reports (e.g.
> hopefully a Last Call of getUserMedia).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dom
>