W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > January 2016

Re: Q: Status of mediastream-worker work and depth tracks?

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:25:31 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FB291249-17AB-4EEE-97CA-FE3EF1F97DA3@intel.com>
Hi Martin,

> On 21 Jan 2016, at 02:26, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 January 2016 at 02:15, Kostiainen, Anssi
> <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
>> Yes. I believe this TF continues to be the best home for these deliverables while the Timed Media WG is in the making. Longer term the Timed Media WG was envisioned as the home for these as well as other audio and video related deliverables beyond mediacapture-main.
> I disagree with this.

My wording above was a bit unclear, so let me clarify my position to clear any confusion. Let me know if you still disagree after these clarifications.

> It's not clear why it would take so
> inordinately long to form a working group,

The earliest next opportunity for the Timed Media WG start is September 2016 per [1]. That's over 7 months out.

> but I hardly see this work as urgent enough to need an interim home.
> It's not exactly burning up the mailing list with activity (something
> I appreciate; github notifications are managing that well enough).

These deliverables are progressing, even if they may not have as much activity as the mediacapture-main mothership spec that has wider scope and has been in the making longer. Consider:

- The latest mediacapture-depth WD was published ~1.5 months ago, 8 Dec 2015 [2].

- The mediacapture-worker is progressing, getting readied for FPWD. Its GitHub notifications are not posted to this mailing list per group decision [3].

- Both specs have implementations in the works. For the latter by Mozilla, for the former by Intel.

Blocking the work on these deliverables for at least 7 months until the Timed Media WG may be chartered seems like a suboptimal solution. We can do better. I'm not sure the bandwidth is a particularly good argument, since these are low bandwidth items with well-defined scopes.

To make it clear: I'm not fixated on this TF. If there are better alternatives than continuing in this TF that allow work on these deliverables to continue, and prevents technical and patent commitment disruptions, I'd be more than happy to hear those.

> This work is best suited to a Timed Media WG.


> I don't see any purpose
> in "adopting" work if we aren't going to work on it, and I don't see
> this group as having the bandwidth to work on anything more.

Speaking as the editor, I'm committed to continue to work on these specs as long as there is implementers' interest.



[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2015Dec/0006.html
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-mediacapture-depth-20151208/
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2015Dec/0067.html
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2016 08:26:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:35 UTC