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

Re: Locus of API discussion

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 01:20:49 -0400
Message-ID: <51EF6431.2020802@bbs.darktech.org>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 24/07/2013 12:54 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:
>
>> From: cowwoc [mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org]:
>>
>>      	We are in agreement over moving all discussion to a single mailing list.
>>
>>   	   I simply meant that the spec editors and browser vendors can use the fact that all discussion has been removed from rtcweb
>> 	as an easy way to ignore the discussion altogether... and that's something I'd like to avoid.
>>
>> Oh, you'll note that the spec editors and chairs are already ignoring most of what the application developer community has said about the current specification, so you shouldn't notice much of a change.
>>
>> Matthew Kaufman
>>
>>
> Mathew this is simply not true. Thought most the people in the WG did not want to go with the Microsoft proposal, the editors, chairs, and WG have been very responsive to feedback from the application developer community. I view your constant claiming this is not true as highly unprofessional.
>
> I realize most the people in the WG rejected your proposal but they have incorporated many other proposal from application developers.

     I hate to reopen old posts but I have to agree with Matthew with 
respect to the past 2 months. I acknowledge that this has improved 
recently, but previous we did not get any response from the WG nor any 
indication that they were incorporating "many other proposals from 
application developers" as you have indicated. We got attempted 
censorship ("this was already discussed" or "we can't discuss this 
because 1.0 is around the corner" without specific references) or we 
were ignored outright by certain members.

     All it would have taken to satisfy me would have been:

  * We acknowledge your legitimate concerns.
  * We believe that we can (and plan to) address these concerns after
    1.0 by doing X, Y, Z and backwards-compatibility will not be a
    problem because of X, Y, Z.

Gili
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 05:21:39 UTC

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