Re: Announce CfC for moving mediacapture-main to CR

The test suite is definitely not ready - Alex Gouillard has made
substantial contributions, but it has been languishing for quite a while.

I would like Dom's input on process here. If we really need to wait
until we have a comprehensive test suite before asking for CR, I think
we urgently need to make the WG aware of this.

(I am positively sure that none of the implementations would pass a
comprehensive test suite, and won't do so this quarter either, but
that's a completely different matter.)

On 04/06/2016 12:35 PM, Daniel Burnett wrote:
> Two thoughts:
> 1. Typically you only move to CR when you are pretty sure there will
> be no more substantive changes.  I am almost convinced that's the case :)
> 2. CR is also a call for implementations, usually based on a test
> suite.  Is the test suite completely ready?  I haven't been directly
> following that but plan to soon; however, I got the impression we are
> not yet ready.
> In particular, the tests I find [1] look good but appear to be far
> fewer in number than I would guess we have normative statements for in
> the spec.  The issue here is that a CR period normally has a defined
> end by when the Implementation Reports need to be in, something
> difficult to do if the test suite is not yet complete.
>
> I do absolutely think it is time to work on the wording for the Call
> for Implementations, meaning that we work out just exactly what we
> expect to receive from implementers in the form of an Implementation
> Report.  If this happened and I missed it, please feel free to point
> me in the right direction.
>
> -- dan
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/mediacapture-streams
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com
> <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     Dan is in the process of making a new Editor's draft which
>     incorporates
>     the PRs #319 and #330.
>
>     The chairs would like to announce a CfC to the TF (which will then I
>     suppose have to be cascaded to the parent WebRTC and DAP WGs) to
>     request
>     a transition to Candidate Recommendation.
>
>     We know there are still some open Issues, but we think they are all
>     solvable (something we would also say in the CfC mail).
>
>     Does any of the editors see a problem with moving forward in this way?
>
>     Stefan for the chairs
>
>


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.