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

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

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:46:59 -0400
Message-ID: <51EF5C43.70104@bbs.darktech.org>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
On 23/07/2013 11:54 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> I will 100% assure you that this API is not going to have 100% 
> agreement that everyone likes it when it is finished. So depending on 
> what you mean by consensus who knows. Everyone is trying to figure out 
> the important things we need to be able to do and make sure the API 
> can do them. At the same time we are trying to sequence the discussion 
> to get the big picture right, then peel the next layer of the notion 
> and fix up more of details, then the finer edge cases. When we are in 
> the process of sorting out fine details, it is frustrating to 
> constantly have to re argue about the big architecture picture. 

     That is understandable, which is why ... two months ago ... I asked 
whether it would be possible to document the list of use-cases and the 
justification for the API architecture/design by referencing specific 
use-cases. When design decisions are scattered like butter across the 
mailing list it inevitably leads to rehashing of old arguments. This is 
part of what I meant when I asked for more transparency.

     This is just one approach. I would welcome other approaches so long 
as they achieve the same goal. Just please don't tell me to wade through 
10,000 messages in the mailing list archive (that is not a solution).

Gili
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 04:47:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:35 UTC