Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:58 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  On 23/07/2013 11:59 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>     We need more frequent webrtc-public IRC meetings
>
>  I (and I suspect others) prefer con calls to IRC meetings. I don't think
> this presents an undue
> barrier to entry.
>
>
>     No problem. Please announce these on webrtc-public with instructions
> on how to join and we will happily meet you there.
>

Conference calls *are* announced on webrtc-public. For instance:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Jun/0003.html

How do you think the WG members find out about them.



>   and more Web Developer representation (ideally unaffiliated with any
>> business interest). A recurring theme I keep on bringing up is that we have
>> an insufficient number of active Web Developers in the Working Group and
>> official meetings. I've asked Stefan recently (I don't think he's had the
>> chance to respond yet) and I'll ask you the same: what is the Working
>> Group's plan to rectify this?
>>
>
>  I'm not sure what you suggest we do. This is a volunteer effort and the
> list
> is open to anyone. That said, this seems to me to be a fairly
> representative
> WG in terms of non-company engagement when compared to the other
> two W3C WGs I am involved in (WebAppSec and peripherally WebCrypto).
>
>
>  Both Google and Mozilla have mailing lists where there is active
> discussion
> from Web Developers and I think the people from both organizations try to
> take that feedback onboard. of course that feedback still gets filtered
> through the representatives from those organizations, but there's nothing
> stopping developers from posting directly here.
>
>
>     The solution I am leaning towards is divorcing WebRTC from Telecoms
> and Web Developers. This sounds like the easiest solution. In that case I
> would expect Browser Vendors to agree to a common API that is interoperable
> across all browsers and (key point!) does not unduly influence design
> decisions of APIs placed on top of it. From a decision-making process point
> of view, things should move a lot faster because each one of us will be
> negotiating with similarly-minded players.
>

Nothing is stopping you from proposing some new JS API in another
forum. This WG is about deciding the API that's implemented in the browser.

-Ekr