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

Re: DOM Futures

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 10:09:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM0P=xys-Y8Au+COUc-sCXzBUv9AyRyKzALwbAKs1x=kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 8:22 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  On 13/07/2013 10:35 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * cowwoc wrote:
>      It's possible that we are referring to separate meetings. Where are
> the IRC chat logs posted to?
>  http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-mediacap-minutes.html probably.
>     That's the one.
>     Upon revisiting the log, my interpretation is that:
>    - slightyoff, annevk, Cow_woC (that's me), jib were in favor of DOM
>    Futures.
>    - juberti, ekr, mreavy were against.
>    - I could't tell which way stefanh, jesup, burn were leaning.
I agree that the transcript is not clear, but I don't think this is
really an accurate summary:

- Adam Roach (abr) though not listed above was clearly against.
- Jesup was also against.

I don't believe you can count JIB as in favor. As I understand his position
it's that he thinks Futures are in principle a good idea, but that it's too
late for 1.0.

All of these people are on the mailing list, so if I've misinterpreted
their positions, they should feel free to speak up. Which actually
raises another point that should be obvious for the list above. All
of the people listed above *against* this change are active WG participants.
Most of the people who are *for* this change are people with
minimal WG involvement. This isn't to say that it's not a topic
worthy of discussion, but merely that there's not really a split
within the WG.

>    -    Most importantly, though, note how the meeting ended and how
>    there is a lack of resolution and action items. I therefore stand by my
>    original assertion that the meeting needs to be repeated in a more
>    organized fashion.
There is a resolution, though it's not minuted as such. Stefanh (the chair)

"the WebRTC and MC TF doesn't seem convinced
... we could move MediaStream Recording and Image Capture to Futures
... any final comments?"

Given this result, I don't really see the need for action items. If you
like the WG to reconsider this, I would focus on building consensus among
WG members, rather than having another meeting to repeat the previous

Received on Saturday, 13 July 2013 17:10:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:18 UTC