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

Re: Locus of API discussion

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:45:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNdQtFZRxGMdAG=B86y_KwuCOq0NpoyAcMUizu-XiovqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:20 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>     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

I'm sorry to be blunt, but this kind of message is part of why people aren't
responding to you in the way you would like:

- People are busy and are not obligated to respond to any particular
set of comments. Demands that they respond (and whatever you
think you're doing, that's how it comes off) don't make people more likely
to respond, it makes them less likely to do so.

- It's not censorship to say that the WG has already made a decision
on a topic and that we shouldn't reopen it. That's how WGs make
progress. And people aren't obligated to provide you references
to the decision; that's what the mailing list archive is for. (See the
previous point).

As I've said before, this is a volunteer organization, and participation
requires technical effort on your part, not just demands for effort on
the part of others.

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 05:46:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:50 UTC