Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

A minor correction:  I haven't engaged anyone on public-webrtc.  I didn't
even realize there were discussions going on over there about the API,
since I wasn't keeping track and I thought they were all going on over
here.  Sorry about that.  I guess I'll head over there and start engaging
:).


On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:11 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2013 11:33 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> The recent set of API discussions has been spread across both the rtcweb
>>> and public-webrtc mailing lists.  That's making it both harder to follow
>>> and harder for folks to work out who is saying what under which rules.  The
>>> chairs of both groups believe that the right place for the discussion to
>>> continue should be public-webrtc.  Please direct follow-ups on this topic
>>> to that list.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Ted Hardie
>>>
>> Ted,
>>
>>     I agree, with one caveat: virtually none of the high-level
>> stakeholders (spec editors, browser vendors, etc) bother to engage the
>> community on public-webrtc.
>>
>
> I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Is it that the aforementioned
> "high-level stakeholders"
> aren't engaging or merely that they are only engaging on RTCWEB? If it's
> the former, than
> I don't think that's actually true, since in the past week, you've had
> responses from (at least)
> the following people who fall into those categories:
>
> Cullen Jennings (spec editor)
> Adam Bergqvist (spec editor)
> Peter Thatcher (works on Chrome)
> Me (works on Firefox and Chrome; spec editor)
> Christer Holmberg (spec editor)
> Several people from Microsoft.
>
> Who, exactly, are you expecting to engage that hasn't engaged?
>
>
> If your complaint is just that they're engaging on the wrong mailing list,
> well
> that seems to reinforce Ted's point above.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>     What's the point of discussing the API on this mailing list if our
>> opinion goes unnoticed? We shouldn't be moving the discussion to
>> public-webrtc as a nice way to filter us out. This discussion requires
>> their attention, be it on one mailing list or the other. I don't mind where
>> we discuss it, so long as they get involved.
>>
>>     Is it their intention to get involved on public-webrtc and summarize
>> the results on rtcweb?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gili
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>