Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a control surface)

For the record, I'm completely against starting a new WG.  Please don't
associate me with that.


On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <
matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:

>  I sure hope that Peter and folks with similar sentiment don’t **actually**
> think that the WG is requiring them to “wait until 2.0” to have these
> issues addressed.****
>
> ** **
>
> Among other things, if the first version can’t be implemented, it won’t be
> a standard… so it would be a shame to have not started on the correct API.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I suppose if the WG chairs are really this inflexible to the membership of
> the WG, we can always start a new WG and get new chairs for it.****
>
> ** **
>
> Matthew Kaufman****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Peter Thatcher [mailto:pthatcher@google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2013 12:29 PM
> *To:* cowwoc
> *Cc:* public-webrtc@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: On babies and bathwater (was Re: [rtcweb] Summary of
> Application Developers' opinions of the current WebRTC API and SDP as a
> control surface)****
>
>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:15 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:*
> ***
>
>  On 19/07/2013 3:06 PM, Adam Roach wrote:****
>
> On 7/19/13 13:47, Peter Thatcher wrote:****
>
> I think this is the real issue at hand: You value legacy interop more than
> a usable API.****
>
>
> This. *This* is why I've told you that you're misunderstanding everything.
> Don't take offense, just go back and read more carefully. I never said
> anything that implied that legacy interop is more valuable than a usable
> API. It's a nice strawman for you to build up and tear down, but you are
> arguing with a fictional character who is not me when you do so.
>
> What I'm trying to point out is that these goals are not at odds with each
> other. Your statement above implies that you have taken it as given that we
> can't do both -- that there is a tradeoff here to be made. If you take that
> as a fundamental principle, then I can see how nothing I say makes any
> sense.
>
> But they're not mutually exclusive goals. Keep that in mind, and go back
> to re-read what I've written.****
>
> ** **
>
>     I think what Adam is trying to say is:
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
>
>     Adam, I would argue that we can improve the API incrementally without
> throwing out all the lessons we've learned to date *but* this means you
> have to be open to change.****
>
>  ** **
>
>
> Ironically, the thing that seems to have gotten the whole SDP discussion
> reignited was that I proposed the "NoPlan JS API", which was a completely
> incremental, additive approach to improving the API.  So, I'm totally in
> favor of an incremental approach to improving the API.  But, when I
> proposed it, I got three big pieces of feedback:****
>
> ** **
>
> 1.  The anti-SDP crowd said, basically, "We don't like it because there's
> still too much SDP;  Remove more".****
>
> 2.  The pro-SDP crowd said, basically, "We don't like it because this
> isn't SDP Offer/Answer;  Don't change so much".****
>
> 3.  The WG leaders said, basically, "let's finish the current API before
> we change anything major".****
>
> ** **
>
> My hope is that 2.0 will be able to make everyone happy. ****
>
> It's not okay to use this as a club to silence calls for change, which
> frankly is what we've been hearing for a while: "Sit tight while we finish
> 1.0... it's just around the corner. Let's not discuss any changes until we
> get this out the door."****
>
>  ** **
>
> FYI, Adam just said we're "nowhere near finished yet".****
>
> ** **
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Gili****
>
>  ** **
>