[wbs] Response to 'Call for Review: Media Working Group Charter'

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for Review:
Media Working Group Charter' (Advisory Committee) for Mozilla Foundation by
Tantek Çelik.

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed until 2025-07-04 at:
  https://www.w3.org/wbs/33280/mediawg-2025/

> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Support for the proposal
> 
> ----
> In case of Formal Objection: Per section 5.5 of the W3C Process Document
> requiring that a record of each Formal Objection must be publicly
> available, we encourage your organization to make their response public.
> You may do so by setting the visibility of your response to this
> questionnaire to public. If it instead chooses to make it Member-visible,
> or Team-only, and does not provide an alternate public version, the Team
> may make the Formal Objection public without attribution, per section
> 7.3.
> My organization:
> 


 * ( ) supports this Charter as is.
 * (x) suggests changes to this Charter, but supports the proposal whether
or not the changes are adopted (your details below).
 * ( ) does not support this Charter for the reasons cited in comments but
is not raising a Formal Objection (your details below).
 * ( ) suggests changes to this Charter, and only supports the proposal if
the changes are adopted [Formal Objection] (your details below).
 * ( ) opposes this Charter and requests that this group not be created
[Formal Objection] (your details below).
 * ( ) abstains from this review.

Comments: 

In general this is a good charter update. 

We are concerned about the
loosening of Success Criteria requirements,
which were done without any reason specific to this Working Group or its
deliverables.

The only reason that seems to apply from the change log was
"boilerplate
text to match latest charter template" which is poor reasoning for lowering
an existing group's Success Criteria requirements, and is more likely to
indicate a problem upstream (it's more likely the Charter boilerplate text
has been regressed/removed without proper review or understanding of why
the prior text was in the boilerplate). However, one problem at a time, and
for this charter in particular, we would find it sufficient to restore the
sentence, updated per latest Process expectations (potential dropping of
PR), but retaining its original meaning: "In order to advance beyond
Candidate Recommendation, each normative specification must have an open
test suite of every feature defined in the specification."

Here is a PR for
restoring that sentence, which should be uncontroversial
since there was no objection to it in the prior charter:
https://github.com/w3c/charter-media-wg/pull/53

The media (especially real
time) ecosystem has an unfortunate history of
non-interoperability from various sources that harmed user experience and
user choice (e.g. WebRTC "Plan B" which diverged implementations and
content/apps from standards and took many years to repair across the web,
nevermind a few more recent WebRTC extensions which continue to break
interoperability across browsers and web sites). 

Maintaining stronger
Success Criteria for interoperability may help to
minimize or mitigate such non-interoperability in the future, or at least
continue to express clear intent from the Working Group that features must
have tests (passed by implementations) in order to advance, and not just
implementations that may or may not actually interoperate. We would support
even stronger Success Criteria for independent interoperable
implementations for this Working Group charter and all other Working Groups
which touch on Media related standards.

Lastly, we would also like to see
the concerns raised by the Center for
Democracy and Technology addressed.

Thank you for your consideration.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Participation
> 
> ----
> If this proposal is approved, my organization would be interested
> in participating in the following groups. Note: This
> answer is non-binding; after the review 
> a formal Call for Participation will be sent for each approved charter.
> Charters include information about proposed staff effort, which may
> be evaluated in the context of the 
> current staff effort tables.
> 
> 


 * [x] Media Working Group


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Support for Deliverables of the group
> 
> ----
> My organization:
> 


 * [x] intends to review drafts as they are published and send comments.
 * [x] intends to develop experimental implementations and send experience
reports (your details below).
 * [x] intends to develop products based on this work (your details below).
 * [x] intends to apply this technology in our operations.

Comments: 



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Expected Implementation Schedules
> 
> ----
> If you expect to implement some deliverables of this activity, please
> indicate any known schedule for such implementations, without commitment.
> 
Comments: 



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Detailed Comments, Reasons, or Modifications
> 
> ----
> In addition to any comments you may have, please provide details about
> your answers. This may include, but is not restricted to, technical
> issues or issues associated with patent claims associated with the
> specification.
> 
Comments: 



> 
> 
> These answers were last modified on 4 July 2025 at 22:21:37 U.T.C.
> by Tantek Çelik
> 

--
The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Friday, 4 July 2025 22:21:41 UTC