Re: Material (again!) for scoping discussion

On 19/12/13 17:01, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>
> This proposal is pretty biased to just be what Google wants, while
> ignoring input on the list. I think we need to start by discussing
> the processes for this.
>
> I'm fine with the chairs might ask the question, see what was on the
> list, and make an aggregated list of topics to consider being in or
> out. I'm OK with the chairs trying to watch the list discussion and
> figure out what topics we can make progress on and sequences the
> order of the discussion.  I am not OK with the chairs building their
> own list or recomendations oriented toward's Google's needs and then
> then trying to stuff that decision through the WG.

The list of items up for discussion [1] was assembled by Justin, Ekr, 
Harald and myself. I think it is mostly based on things we have been 
discussing and I don't think it is biased just be what Google wants. 
That said, of course any input made is colored by what is on the mind(s) 
of the person(s) making the input.

I really pushed for getting the list out as early as possible to allow 
for review and for others to proposed changes, we managed to get it out 
three days before which to me seems reasonably OK given that the list is 
not super long, and that everyone knew we would have a call to discuss this.

The chairs then went through the list to form an opinion of the 
different items. I can only speak for myself, and I did the best I could 
based on (my understanding) of where implementations are, input and 
discussion on the lists and at meetings etc. to enable going to a LC in 
a reasonable time frame while not removing functionality that is 
requested by many. I certainly did not have Google's best in mind.

Harald would have to speak for himself, but my impression was that he 
reasoned in a similar way to me.

Anyway, what we produced [2] was *proposals* on how we could move 
forward with the different items, no decisions we wanted to push 
through. I hoped that was clear by the title ("Chairs' proposal for 
WebRTC 1.0 In/Out"). We did not really get to into the details of our 
thinking and reasoning during the teleconf due to shortage of time, but 
I hope we can provide further details on the list.

And Cullen, I am looking forward to your input (both comments to the 
lists referenced here and the alternative list you said you will 
produce). Perhaps that will help us moving forward.

Stefan

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Dec/att-0051/WebRTC_1.0_In_2FOut_-_W3C.pdf
[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Dec/att-0076/Chairs__proposal_for_WebRTC_1.0_In_2FOut_-_W3C__1_.pdf

>
>
> On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we've now gone through the list of items that could be in/out of
>> 1.0 of WebRTC, and developed our opinion.
>>
>> Clue for reading (most should be obvious): when there is a strange
>> name in the "Can be own spec?" column we propose creating a
>> separate document (with that working name).
>>
>> Sorry for the very short notice, we'll talk more about this at the
>> telechat in a little less than five hours.
>>
>> Stefan for the chairs <Chairs' proposal for WebRTC 1.0 In%2FOut -
>> W3C (1).pdf>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 December 2013 13:10:59 UTC