W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Objections to new charter

From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:24:32 +0000
To: public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BA21480E-2C96-479D-BA5E-21938EC07485@cisco.com>
 

> My summary of Microsoft formal objection
> ================================
> 
> The WG is 3 years behind it's the currently chartered work and should be extend only a few months so that the Team and the AC will be in better position to decide to do this work in some other way that the WebRTC WG. One alternative way would be the ORTC community group. 
> 
> Nine months ago the WG had consensus to add the RTPSender/Receiver objects but despite multiple pull requests, that has still not happened. (Note that at the time Microsoft wrote this, that was correct and even though this is in the spec now). This needs to speed up so we want the charter to describe how the editor could use github while ensuring the WG explicitly review and the spec before publishing official Working Drafts. 
> 


* I will note that most of this time was waiting for one of the ORTC authors to send a pull request as they were adamant at the meeting that they wanted to write the text and not have the authors do it. It arrived at the time where the WG had committed to trying to focus on the media capture draft. 



> The charter should only be extended 2 years.

* I have not problems with that


> 
> It should focus on finishing the first generation of the spec WebRTC 1.0 API Recommendation that documents the first generation of the API and should not be extended to do the next version of this API. 


* Much of the work the WG is doing now is about functionally beyond the 1.0 API - for example, one of the reasons for the RTC Sender Receiver objects were for the object oriented functionally. It is important that people can see the things they want can come after 1.0 or else we will just have people trying to get everything in 1.0 and it will never complete. 

> 
> It should not use the word "WebRTC NG" since discussion of the next generation API has been happening in the ORTC community group for 18 months. The community group has as many active members as the WG and the chair and editor do ensure it has consensus behind the drafts it publishes. I will take the liberty of directly quoting from the response as I feel the following is probably the most important point made in the objections "A future charter for “WebRTC NG” standardization must be drafted as a collaboration between the leaders of the WebRTC WG and the ORTC CG and reflect whatever industry consensus exists at that time on how to move to a next generation API."
> 
> 

* I agree that NG is a bad choice of words and we should change to something specific. However, I feel very strongly this WG needs to do work beyond the 1.0 specification. I realize that Microsoft and Hookflash would prefer the WG closed and that the ORTC standard was the only thing left. I do not however view that as what the WG wants to do. I would be happy to see the chairs take ending the WG after the 1.0 work to a WG vote.  

* As one side note, as far as I can tell only a single person from Hookflash has made any contributions to the ORTC spec in the last 6 months

> 
> My summary of the Hookflash formal objection
> ===================================
> 
> It is not OK to re-charter the WG in it's current state. The current "editorial board" is not acceptable and new people should be selected from the ORTC community group and the WG. Hookflash applauds the editors and chairs for their efforts. 

* I don't think the editors is a topic of charter discussion. I will also note as one of the editors I have not received a single complaint or concerns about the editors or their efforts from the WG or chairs. 

> 
> Recharter should be no more than 2 years and remove any next generation API work. Next generation work should only be considered after the ORTC community group has had more real world experience with the ORTC API.
> 
> 

* again, I think the WG clearly desires to do work beyond 1.0 and we need to recharter to allow that to happen as we are already have several pull requests that start adding the low level object API. People wish this was slower but fundamentally not making this charter changes is going to slow down the existing work



Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 20:25:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:43 UTC