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: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:01:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMzG+Y1bhywHSZ_bFk6xOD_XfqkVEu8pg1=PuytGPJgiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:46 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

> 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).
>

Sorry, but having decisions documented on the mailing list and/or
meeting minutes is simply the way nearly every IETF or W3C WG I have
ever been involved in has worked. Occasionally someone will produce a
rationale document at the end, but it's a huge amount of work (partially
because documenting the arguments for and against any decision
impartially is hard) and is really hard to keep up to date.

One might wish it were otherwise, but both IETF and W3C are volunteer
organizations, so you get the work people are willing to do.

-Ekr
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 05:02:20 UTC

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