[apis] "tuner api" CG discussion

Hi all,

Last week during the Media API TF call I was assigned to reach out the moderators and co-chairs of Web & TV IG to discuss the conclusions regarding the misnamed Tuner API. We would like to extend the discussion to the whole group. 

Basically, we all agree that there is something to define, and that it should go to a CG, not a WG, as it’s still early and we’re not aligned regarding what kind of solution we’ll come up with (and consequently which WG would be appropriate). 

Other important comments are:
* Naming*
* Tuner API seems ill-named and would lead implicitly to assuming the outcome of the CG, which is not what we want. Tuner URI has the same issue :) 
While it would seem as not important, it happens that many CGs are joined out of the naming so it’s actually a big deal to give it a name which reflects what problem we want to solve, while not influencing on what kind of solution has our preference. 
Side-effect: the description of the CG needs to be aligned with these requirements.

* Communication*
* It’s the first CG spawned from the IG. There is no official way to tell the CG has to report to the IG, but obviously while the CG will live his own life, it would benefit everyone that there is a continuous communication channel between them. People who will lead the CG are more than probably already leading or actively following something in the IG, but everything we can do to make it efficient will be interesting to consider
 
Moderators & co-chairs will add/correct this report as they see fit, and will of course state their personal opinion (so will I in future e-mails)

Regards
JC

Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 08:56:43 UTC