Re: Recap from WebRTC World

Dear gill,

Thanks for your multiple contributions to the discussions on the mailing
list. I think you, and others, have been heard and the reason behind some
of us changing their mind and/or re assessing the situation. Your
contributions have been great *and* could be greater.

I don't think we should segregate people because they know too much. What
you might want around the table for discussion are people knowledgeable of
your problem, who can represent you and voice your concerns when time
comes. Wether they are also knowledgeable in telco, martial arts, french
cooking (name your craft here) should be irrelevant. You might argue that
their being knowledgeable in the telco space makes handling SDP easier for
them, and I'm sure it does, (and you have no idea how much french cooking
actually helps relieving the frustrations of manipulating SDP), however it
does not mean they cannot evaluate the pain it is for someone with, say, a
more focussed skill set to handle it.

If you look at the WG, you will see 78 participants from 37 organizations.
You have start ups represented there like bistri (quite a few of them) and
ourselves. You also have representatives from large groups that involve a
lot of web developers. Cullen note about his organization having a lot of
web developers and his representing them, as well as google is spot on,
IMHO. You have Samsung, huawei and nokia, respectively #1, 3 and 5
smartphone sellers. They differenciate based on apps and webapps, if you re
curious enough to double check the background of their representative to
the WG, you might be surprised... You (we) are, I guess, well represented.

Now, if you wanted to get more involved and participate more actively in
the process, you are completely free to join the WG (maybe you already
have). The main load is the mailing list, to which you already actively
contribute. Then you only have to schedule 3 to 4 meetings a year
(remotely) and one TPAC. For a start up, the fee is only a couple of
thousands for a couple of year (to be confirmed)....
  Existence of a process means that there are delays. Wether those delays
are too long, or too short, or wether this is the right thing are a
question of perception and are debatable. A good solution is usually one
which lead as many people bitching one way than the other :-) Some will
complain it's creaming fast, some will say 2 month is unacceptable. We've
heard both here. Practically, if you think it should be done differently,
join the W3C and start move things from within. I'm convinced that it will
be more efficient than bringing the mailing list count to 664 with good
hope for reaching 700+ for july (yes, I am aware it was a joint effort with
several others). While it was certainly refreshing to see some bringing up
issues that resonate with our own experience (thanks for that), now that
our concerns have been documented in drafts (thanks to the draft writers),
heard, put in a document (thanks), acknowledged by chairs (thanks), and
have their place in the process, we feel it is time to move on, and reduce
the load on the mailing list. That does not mean giving up on your ideas
and points, that just means moving the effort to the W3C process.

Best regards,

alex.




On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:24 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

> On 24/07/2013 3:03 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>
>>         • How do we address the fact that the WG does not represent web
>>> developers? (I believe we are in the middle of having this discussion)
>>>
>> I suspect we are closer to the end of the discution than the middle of
>> this discussion.
>>
>> Let start at a high level. I and many other people here doubly believe in
>> the principles of http://open-stand.org/**principles/<http://open-stand.org/principles/>and more importantly W3C and IETF believe in that. One of the key
>> principles is balance, which is around inclusiveness. W3C allows anyone to
>> become members of a WG (part of the "open" in "open-stand"). Decisions are
>> made by the members, some who are developers and some who are not.
>> Practically this means that decisions about this API are getting made by
>> some people that are developers and some that are not. The W3C thinks that
>> is a good thing. So do I - I like diversity it all it's forms.
>>
>
>     I did not mean to imply that only developers should sit on the WG. Of
> the developers, I'm advocating a diversity of developer types.
>
>
>  Of other importance, it would be an anti trust issue if we decided that
>> all members were equal but web developer members were more equal than
>> others.
>>
>
>     I'm asking for equal representation, not more than equal.
>
>
>  A change of this type would require fundamental process changes at W3C.
>> Theses process changes could not be done inside this WG.
>>
>> The other issue is what you think a web developer is. I suspect that you
>> think of me as a telco but consider for a moment that I deal with thorny
>> web issues for a very large group of web developers that build webex which
>> is what some analyst consider the #2 cloud provider (behind
>> salesforce.com). Not sure I see it as the #2 but any way you look at it,
>> webex has a lot of web developers working on it and needs to deal with all
>> of the long term hard web developer problems. I think the more you look at
>> it, you will find it hard to decide who is a web developer, who is
>> implementing browsers, and who is a telco. I don't tend to use theses types
>> of distinctions between people. Obviously google has some pretty talented
>> people around web development and web API design. Thinking they don't know
>> how to do this just because they also produce a browser would be a bad
>> assumption.
>>
>
>     When I first mentioned "Web Developers" a few months ago I wrote: "Web
> Developers without telecom experience". I hope this clarifies the type of
> developers I am asking for.
>
>
>          • Troubleshooting WebRTC: There is a gaping hope when it comes to
>>> user-facing diagnostic tools.
>>>
>> I think most people following this works know we intent to add more to
>> the stats API. If you want to improve this, I would suggest looking at
>> metrics that are already defined for RTCP and RTCP-XR and pick which ones
>> you need to solve this then come up with a concreted propel for adding
>> theses to the stats API including why they are the right set.
>>
>> I was nearly in tear of laughter as you explained to EKR how Skype works.
>> I don't know if you know but Eric was one of the most senior engineers at
>> Skype. I wonder if he qualifies as a web developer - there is code he wrote
>> in Skype, Facebook, WebEx, Chrome, Firefox, as well as many web servers.
>>
>
>     No, he does not (for the reasons mentioned above).
>
> Gili
>
>