- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:46:59 -0400
- 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