W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Locus of API discussion

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:31:06 +0200
Message-ID: <51E53D0A.9020108@alvestrand.no>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 07/09/2013 11:44 PM, cowwoc wrote:
> On 09/07/2013 4:40 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> Hi Eric,
>
>     It's my understanding that public-webrtc is for discussing the 
> WebRTC API, and RTCWeb is for discussing the WebRTC wire protocol.
>
>     Three weeks ago I posted a summary of discussion points that came 
> up in the WebRTC World conference (most of which had to do with the 
> WebRTC API). To date, I have not received a reply from any of the 
> people you have listed. I am unable to gather the necessary momentum 
> to turn these points into action items without your help. I was/am 
> frustrated that the spec editors and vendors are responsible to engage 
> the community on these matters, but did not. I hope this clarifies 
> what I meant.

I've been on vacation for those 3 weeks, so I'm coming late to the 
thread....

One possibility you should seriously consider is whether some of your 
points have been discussed to death long ago, and none of the 
stakeholders you mention wish to reopen the debate.

Another is that people read a message called "Recap from WebRTC World" 
as notes from a meeting, and not a call to action. That was certainly my 
first reaction.

I'll send a response to the "Recap" message once I've caught up some more.


>
>     On a side-note, I do not view the SDP discussion as a response to 
> my post. This discussion was well under-way beforehand and only made 
> up one of the seven points I brought up. I would appreciate it if 
> multiple stakeholders would address each of the points I brought up.
>
>> If your complaint is just that they're engaging on the wrong mailing 
>> list, well
>> that seems to reinforce Ted's point above.
>
>     That's fine. I don't mind moving all API discussion to this list, 
> so long as they actually reply this time.
>
> Thank you,
> Gili
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 12:31:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:34 UTC