W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Methods of working: WebRTC WG and the PeerConnection spec

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 20:24:34 +0900
To: Stefan H¸«©kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110513112432.GH48913@sideshowbarker>
Hi Stefan,

About this question:

> A question: filing bugs feels like something you do when the problem (and
> possibly the solution) is quite clear. But would not a bug filing in many
> cases be preceeded by a discussion, especially for stuff like WebRTC
> where new concepts (like peer-to-peer communication) and solutions are
> introduced? I think there will be a need for a lot of discussions
> (presumably via mail) as we move forward.

Right -- using bugzilla doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) a substitute
for list discussions. It can just be another choice, for those who opt to
use it, for commenting on the spec. I guess one of the things that make it
a particularly appealing and useful option to certain implementors
(especially browser implementors) is that it's quite similar to the bug
systems they use in their "day jobs" for receiving and tracking bugs about
the products they work on.

Also, it's easy to configure things such that each time a new bug is
raised, a notification and description for it can automatically get posted
to the working-group discussion list. And if it's something that seems to
merit discussion on the list, anybody's free to reply to the notification
on the list and say, We really should discuss this here. But if it's
instead something that doesn't seem to merit the attention of the whole
group, but instead maybe just the editor (e.g., about a typo or editorial
correction/suggestion of some other kind), then people who care to follow
it can just add themselves to the Cc list for the bug, while others who
don't have an interest in it don't need to pay any more attention to it.

Anyway, it goes without saying that each group has its own culture, some of
which comes collectively from the participants in the group, and some of
which is set by the chairs based on how they want to run things. So using
bugzilla is certainly not a requirement, and I'm not saying that making it
available in this particular group is absolutely the right thing. It's up
the to chairs to decide how they'd best like to manage communication.

But I do want to note that using bugzilla seems to have worked out pretty
well for collecting some useful feedback on the HTML5 spec, as well as some
related specs in the WebApps working group and elsewhere. And it has not
precluded very active discussion from continuing to take place on the
corresponding discussion lists for specs (the HTML WG public-html mailing
list, the WHATWG list, the WebApps WG public-webapps list, and so on).

  --Mike

Stefan H¸«©kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, 2011-05-13 11:23 +0200:

> Of course we will need to discuss between Harald, Francois and myself (as
> well as getting the new WG to agree), but spontaneously this feels like a
> very good way forward.
> 
> A question: filing bugs feels like something you do when the problem (and
> possibly the solution) is quite clear. But would not a bug filing in many
> cases be preceeded by a discussion, especially for stuff like WebRTC
> where new concepts (like peer-to-peer communication) and solutions are
> introduced? I think there will be a need for a lot of discussions
> (presumably via mail) as we move forward.
> 
> Stefan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
> Sent: den 12 maj 2011 21:16
> To: Michael[tm] Smith
> Cc: Harald Alvestrand; Stefan H¸«©kansson LK; Francois Daoust; www-archive@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Methods of working: WebRTC WG and the PeerConnection spec
> 
> On Fri, 13 May 2011, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> > Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 2011-05-12 18:46 +0000:
> > 
> > > The HTML working group at the W3C has been using W3C's Bugzilla 
> > > instance to handle HTML spec feedback, which has also worked well; 
> > > I'd be happy to handle PeerConnection feedback through that 
> > > mechanism as well. I imagine Mike would be happy to set up a 
> > > component for us if we want to do that. There's already a number of 
> > > bugs on the topic filed there.
> > 
> > Yeah, it's easy to set up new components in bugzilla, and our 
> > experiences with using it in the HTML WG have shown that a lot of 
> > implementors and QA engineers from browser-dev teams and such like 
> > having a bug system available as a choice for providing comments and 
> > questions, and will make good use of it if it's provided.
> 
> Cool, thanks Mike.
> 
> One other advantage with using Bugzilla, come to think of it, is that the bug filing mechanism in the WHATWG specs are already set up to automatically file bugs in the right components in the W3C Bugzilla.
> 

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 11:24:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:36 GMT