Re: Proposed amendments to WebRTC charter

Adam, I think you might have misinterpreted my comments. I am not saying we
should omit it because ORTC CG is working on it, although there are other
participants in the WG who might argue that point.

>From my limited experience I have never found that it pays to talk about
project features long before there is any real plan to implement those
features. From what I can tell that is roughly 2 years out?

I just don't see the benefit in bringing it up unless there is plan is all.


*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash
<http://hookflash.com/>* | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Adam Roach <abr@mozilla.com> wrote:

>  We have pretty broad agreement among those people who have been active
> in WebRTC development so far that we want to start working on enhancements
> to the overall API, and there is good reason to believe that this work will
> be underway in a relatively short timeframe. It seems misguided to omit
> something that we know we want to work on simply because there is a body of
> existing work that may have some useful concepts to draw from.
>
> Given the concerns Erik expresses below, I propose that we strike mention
> of the ORTC CG from the charter and otherwise keep the forward-looking
> language about adding new API surfaces for finer control.
>
> /a
>
>
> On 3/27/15 11:19, Erik Lagerway wrote:
>
> We can appreciate the desire to include mention of ORTC, it's an excellent
> API, with a solid following (latest draft shipped 2 days ago:
> https://www.w3.org/community/ortc/2015/03/26/updated-ortc-api-3252015/),
> full disclosure, I am chair of the ORTC CG.
>
>  That being said, it doesn't strike me as particularly prudent to be
> referring to future work around objects in the WG until we have agreed to
> talk about a plan with that in mind. Either we come up with a plan or leave
> the copy out until we all can agree on the creation of said object plan(s).
>
>  /Erik
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with the updated proposed charter, with the exception of the
>> removal of the following text:
>>
>> "As the name implies, WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
>> Browsers is to be considered as a first version of APIs for real-time
>> communication. The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time
>> Communication Between Browsers reaches Candidate Recommendation, consider
>> working on a new set of low level object-oriented APIs for real-time
>> communication. The activities in the ORTC (Object Real-time Communications)
>> Community Group indicate that there is interest in a new set of APIs. As
>> part of this consideration, the group will reevaluate its deliverables and
>> milestones, and may reconsider its scope. "
>>
>> I would prefer that this text go back in.  It does not require a
>> deliverable -- rather, it explicitly informs the public that the group will
>> revisit its deliverables, milestones, and scope at this point.  Note that
>> this only applies once the WebRTC spec reaches Candidate Recommendation,
>> which it should easily do within the 2-year charter timeframe.
>>
>> -- dan
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 3:56 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux 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
>>  > <diff.html><webrtc-charter.html>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>  Adam Roach
> Principal Platform Engineer
> abr@mozilla.com
> +1 650 903 0800 x863
>