- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 09:27:18 -0400
- To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- CC: Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com>, 'Martin Thomson' <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, 'Parthasarathi R' <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, 'Iñaki Baz Castillo' <ibc@aliax.net>, 'Robin Raymond' <robin@hookflash.com>, 'Roman Shpount' <roman@telurix.com>, 'Ted Hardie' <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "'piranna_gmail.com'" <piranna@gmail.com>, "'public-webrtc_w3.org'" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, 'Eric Rescorla' <ekr@rtfm.com>
On 08/07/2013 8:43 AM, Adam Bergkvist wrote:
>
>> I agree, and (sorry to say) I think that the specification editors
>> have to bare the brunt of the blame.
>>
>> We put out some good discussion points and haven't received a
>> single reply from them over the past 2 weeks. Why? They could have used
>> the momentum to drive a constructive discussion.
>>
>> Debating is useless unless it results in actionable items. We're
>> going to be hard-pressed to produce anything actionable without the spec
>> leads engaging the community.
>>
>> Gili
>
> I wish that I, as a spec editor, could edit the spec after my own
> preferences; the spec would have looked a lot different and we would
> have been done by now. ;) (stolen quote) But the editors team's task
> is to edit the document after group consensus; which isn't always easy
> when we can't reach consensus on stuff.
>
> Personally I think the fact that we're not progressing and the way the
> API has been received, by the people who are intended to use it,
> clearly indicates that we're not doing it right. Less dependence on
> decisions from other groups and requirements coming from the top,
> instead of from what happens between UAs on the network, would also
> make our lives easier IMO.
>
> I'm looking forward to see the API proposal and I'll be happy to
> comment on it.
>
> /Adam
>
Hi Adam,
Thanks for breaking the silence :)
I'm not expecting editors to edit the spec after their own
preferences, but I do expect you to expose a design document which
explains the decisions made to date. At the very least, it would help us
avoid repeating the same arguments (many of them based on assumptions of
why certain design elements have to remain in place). The design
document should document all use-cases being addressed by WebRTC and how
the API addresses each one.
It's very important to keep on engaging the community, in order to
collect and document this information. I hope this clarifies what I meant.
Take care,
Gili
Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 13:28:36 UTC