Re: ORTC CG vs WebRTC WG Issues

Thanks Iñaki,

I don't think anyone is trying to take on all the work in the CG
themselves, on the contrary, we need all the help we can get. We deeply
appreciate and value all contributions.

The first ORTC objects were integrated into the 1.0 WebRTC spec back in
2014, before they landed in the 1.0 spec we behaved a bit more
autonomously. We are long past that now and many of the ORTC objects have
been integrated into WebRTC 1.0. Now we have to consider the implications
when making changes that could adversely affect the WebRTC spec. It's no
longer "their spec", it's "our spec" as well.

Once ORTC elements are integrated into the WG spec I don't think it makes a
lot of sense to rake them back and re-work them in the CG without
consideration of those in the WG.

When thinking about new proposals for functionality or APIs that have not
been integrated into WebRTC 1.0, I think that is appropriate work for the
CG to take on, that's kinda why we started this CG in the first place,
right?

Best regards,
/Erik


On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2016-04-26 22:09 GMT+02:00 Erik Lagerway <elagerway@gmail.com>:
> > We (ORTC editors, spec authors, chairs) will not submit Issues or PRs in
> the WG on behalf of another person or organization.
>
> I can understand that the current purpose of ORTC is, in fact,
> modeling a better API for WebRTC (2.0?). However, I don't understand
> why CG members cannot propose changes directly into the ORTC CG.
>
> Basically that means that, regardless I follow ORTC progress, I must
> propose changes into the WebRTC WG and, if they are accepted there,
> the ORTC editors would incorporate them into the ORTC spec.
>
> No sense IMHO and, honestly, I'm totally lost regarding the purpose of
> ORTC given that just a few ones can propose spec/API changes in there.
>
> Anyhow, thanks a lot for your comment and clarification.
>
> Best regards.
>
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
>