Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API

On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:34 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:

> Nice try, but your un-Googley colors are a dead give away.  You'll need to try harder next time :).

dang :-)

> 
> Seriously, could you provide more information about the developers you spoke to, what you asked, what their responses were?  Better yet, could you ask them to come to the list and express their thoughts firsthand?  I think the more (good) firsthand input we have, the better.  No offense, but I would find that much more valuable than your second-hand, un-detailed summary.

No offense taken and I complete understand that any message filtered through any given person has to be viewed with some skepticism. That combined with some of these companies are still in stealth mode about what they are doing makes me very hesitant to provide lists of who I spoke to. And of course that just adds to the skepticism you should have for this information. 

But there is one very important things that I did do multiple times. I encouraged anyone who thought there was something lacking in the current API to send email to the lists. I said this to many people I talked to, I said it in all my presentations, I have it in my slides along with links on how to do it.  There were google people in the room when I did that and I suspect were there to hear the responses when we asked about issues in the plenary. I imagine that other google folks that went to the conference should get the recordings when they get published and I would guess that you can review them. They are typically not public as that is how the conference makes money but anyone can go to the conference. 


> 
> On Jul 23, 2013 8:22 PM, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I wasn't at the conference, but I think it would really be helpful if your complaint here
> >
> >
> > Luckily there were people at the google booth at the conference. Photo of it attached …
> >

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 05:15:22 UTC