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

Re: Proposed amendments to WebRTC charter

From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:40:39 +0000
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
CC: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, Adam Roach <abr@mozilla.com>, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1C4857F-4C37-4690-ABD1-D969E41AE51E@cisco.com>

+1 to what Andy said and many others. 

This term "NG" just seemed loaded with confusion and we should toss it out of the charter. But the WG has agreed to, going beyond the 1.0 API, and add an object oriented interface - ware are already starting pulling parts of that in. 

Previously Erik had said the ORTC folks would be bringing their work as input the WG. I for one certainly hopes that happens and I had always expected the 1.1 API to incorporate many of the aspects of the ORTC API. But regardless of if that happens or not, there is wide WG consensus to move forward with adding the objects. We need the charter to reflect that. So I agree with dan that some text along that lines (but removing the term NG) needs to be in the charter. 


> On Mar 27, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com> wrote:
> 
> IMHO we should not be using terms such as NG, WebRTC 1.1, 2.0 etc in the charter these just cause confusion and are not something that have been agreed as far as I understand.
> 
> Regards
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 Mar 2015, at 16:11, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> What I *think* we do have agreement on is to incorporate objects (RtpSender, RtpReceiver, IceTransport, DtlsTransport) into the WebRTC 1.0 API, roughly along the lines originally proposed by Justin at the May 2014 interim, and subsequently discussed at TPAC (and partially incorporated recently).
>> 
>> That's our understanding as well and we support that, I was just hoping to see a bit more structure here before speaking to it in the charter.
>> 
>> At any rate, not going to stand fast if I am the only one.
>>  
>> However, I did note some "different understanding" about whether that work is "NG".  IMHO, the term "NG" should not be applied to the object work which is agreed to be in scope for WebRTC 1.0 API. 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: elagerway@gmail.com [elagerway@gmail.com] on behalf of Erik Lagerway [erik@hookflash.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:57 PM
>> To: Adam Roach
>> Cc: Dan Burnett; Dominique Hazael-Massieux; public-webrtc@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Proposed amendments to WebRTC charter
>> 
>> Adam, I think you might have misinterpreted my comments. I am not saying we should omit it because ORTC CG is working on it, although there are other participants in the WG who might argue that point.
>> 
>> >From my limited experience I have never found that it pays to talk about project features long before there is any real plan to implement those features. From what I can tell that is roughly 2 years out?
>> 
>> I just don't see the benefit in bringing it up unless there is plan is all.
>> 
>> 
>> Erik Lagerway<http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | Hookflash<http://hookflash.com/> | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog<http://webrtc.is/>
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Adam Roach <abr@mozilla.com<mailto:abr@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>> We have pretty broad agreement among those people who have been active in WebRTC development so far that we want to start working on enhancements to the overall API, and there is good reason to believe that this work will be underway in a relatively short timeframe. It seems misguided to omit something that we know we want to work on simply because there is a body of existing work that may have some useful concepts to draw from.
>> 
>> Given the concerns Erik expresses below, I propose that we strike mention of the ORTC CG from the charter and otherwise keep the forward-looking language about adding new API surfaces for finer control.
>> 
>> /a
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/27/15 11:19, Erik Lagerway wrote:
>> We can appreciate the desire to include mention of ORTC, it's an excellent API, with a solid following (latest draft shipped 2 days ago: https://www.w3.org/community/ortc/2015/03/26/updated-ortc-api-3252015/), full disclosure, I am chair of the ORTC CG.
>> 
>> That being said, it doesn't strike me as particularly prudent to be referring to future work around objects in the WG until we have agreed to talk about a plan with that in mind. Either we come up with a plan or leave the copy out until we all can agree on the creation of said object plan(s).
>> 
>> /Erik
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com<mailto:dburnett@voxeo.com>> wrote:
>> I'm fine with the updated proposed charter, with the exception of the removal of the following text:
>> 
>> "As the name implies, WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers is to be considered as a first version of APIs for real-time communication. The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers reaches Candidate Recommendation, consider working on a new set of low level object-oriented APIs for real-time communication. The activities in the ORTC (Object Real-time Communications) Community Group indicate that there is interest in a new set of APIs. As part of this consideration, the group will reevaluate its deliverables and milestones, and may reconsider its scope. "
>> 
>> I would prefer that this text go back in.  It does not require a deliverable -- rather, it explicitly informs the public that the group will revisit its deliverables, milestones, and scope at this point.  Note that this only applies once the WebRTC spec reaches Candidate Recommendation, which it should easily do within the 2-year charter timeframe.
>> 
>> -- dan
>> 
>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 3:56 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > As you may be aware, our proposed new WebRTC charter received formal objections during the Advisory Committee review. Since these objections were made in a Member-confidential setting, I'm not at liberty to give too much detail about them, but they essentially focused on our proposal to include a WebRTC-NG deliverable when the group hasn't reached LC for any of its current deliverables. You can find more about the objections at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webrtc-2015/results
>> >
>> > Working with the Chairs and the objectors, I've proposed an updated charter that removes the -NG deliverable, adds a liaison to the ORTC CG, and offers clarifications on our mode of work; the said charter and the diff to the one that was sent for AC Review are attached to this message. The said updated charter was acceptable to the objectors.
>> >
>> > My expectations with this new charter would be that we make use of the proposed liaison to the ORTC group to develop a common understanding in the upcoming months, leading to a rechartering that includes an -NG converged deliverable once WebRTC 1.0 reaches stability and interop.
>> >
>> > I have been consulting the AC Representatives that reviewed our original proposed charter, and I was asked to bring these modifications to the group for discussion before bringing the charter to W3C Director approval.
>> >
>> > As an aside, since formally speaking this group is out of charter since the beginning of this month, depending on our pace of convergence on this proposal, I might have to request an extension of our expired charter to the Director to allow us to continue publishing technical reports (e.g. hopefully a Last Call of getUserMedia).
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Dom
>> > <diff.html><webrtc-charter.html>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Adam Roach
>> Principal Platform Engineer
>> abr@mozilla.com<mailto:abr@mozilla.com>
>> +1 650 903 0800 x863<tel:%2B1%20650%20903%200800%20x863>
>> 
>> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 20:41:27 UTC

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