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

Membership of this WG (Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers)

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:41:04 +0200
Message-ID: <51E53F60.2040205@alvestrand.no>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 07/15/2013 06:23 PM, cowwoc wrote:
> On 15/07/2013 9:15 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>> I've read a lot of email that talk what the working groups have 
>> consensus on in regards to the overall API, but I can only really 
>> nail down a couple of concrete things (everything else seems unclear):
>> 1.  A year or so ago, almost everyone was against CU-RTCWEB.
>> 2.  Since then, few, if any proposals to change or add to the core of 
>> the API have been proposed.  None have made any progress. 
>>  (Specifically, I mean things that would allow JS control without 
>> doing SDP mangling)
>> 3.  There's a very, very strong push by working group leaders to stay 
>> focused on shipping the current API and not change or add anything 
>> major.  Any discussion of any API changes or additions that would 
>> allow a JS app to do signaling without SDP is strongly frowned upon, 
>> because it would threaten the progress on the existing API.   It's 
>> even frowned upon to discuss with web developers what their use cases 
>> and pains are, since their feedback might threaten progress.
>> Is that an accurate summary?
>     This is an excellent discussion thread.
>     If you don't mind, I'd like to add the following question:
> 4. Who are the members of the Working Group?
>     Once we get this answered, I'd like to make sure that the majority 
> of the Working Group responds to this thread as opposed to what has 
> happened in the past.


You might want to consider carefully the fact that this is a World Wide 
Web Consortium working group, and operates under World Wide Web 
Consortium rules, which have lots of paragraphs dealing with procedures, 
appeals procedures, objection procedures, and so on.
Don't ask others to read those procedural documents for you; they're 
publicly available.

These procedures are generally seen as a fallback to handle the cases 
where consensus cannot be achieved; if we're discussing how to achieve a 
majority vote to ignore a formal objection, in one sense we have already 
lost. I hope we won't get there.

However, at the moment, I can't find anyone named "Gili" or a company 
named "Darktech" on the membership list, so it seems that the formal 
procedures are not available to you; you're absolutely welcome to 
participate in the consensus process, but if you want to raise issues 
formally, you might want to consider Consortium membership.
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 12:41:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:49 UTC