Re: Proposed Charter Changes

Well this topics seem the essence of the future of this WG so I'd like to ask the chairs to schedule a WG phone call to discuss this then take a formal WG member vote on how to proceed.


> On Apr 2, 2015, at 9:49 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> I’ve seen Cullen’s  counterproposal [1] to Dom’s proposed charter revision [2] that addressed comments on the charter balloted by the AC. As Microsoft’s Advisory Committee representative who filed one of those comments, I see two fairly fundamental issues here.
> 
> First, we strongly believe the WebRTC WG should focus on getting WebRTC 1.0 done as soon as possible, and that work shouldn’t be distracted by discussions about a next-generation standard.  Contrary to some assertions expressed on this list,  Microsoft  and Hookflash  do want to see a WebRTC 1.0 Recommendation completed that reflects the WG consensus to integrate an object model, along the lines proposed by Justin Uberti.   Also, having a basic object framework within WebRTC 1.0 (even if the objects are not used for direct control) is an important step toward future work.  Until the WebRTC 1.0 standard is completed, it is premature to talk about interoperability between WebRTC 1.0 and some future standard.
> 
> Second, we see a major distinction between chartering the WEBRTC WG to “extend” the WebRTC 1.0 API, while retaining the SDP control mechanism, and working on an API that does not utilize SDP.  In our view, a WebRTC 1.0 API with objects only has limited opportunities for extension within the object model, since the objects could only be used to provide functionality that is not negotiated.  As a result, we view the former approach as more of a “WebRTC 1.0 maintenance” exercise.   ORTC’s goal has been to support the WebRTC 1.0 feature set without SDP,  which we view as an approach better able to accommodate advanced video in the short term and significant additional functionality in the long term.  While we recognize there are different views on the way forward, we don’t think constraining future specs to be backward compatible with 1.0 is a good idea, certainly not at this point when the 1.0 spec is still immature and interoperability between independent implementations of 1.0 has not been rigorously demonstrated.
> 
> 
> In short, we support the effort to enhance and test WebRTC 1.0 to meet the criteria for a Recommendation,  while we and others work on getting  ORTC actually implemented.  When those goals are met, we can all assess what works in the real world, and then the broader RTC community can talk about what a charter for a group to develop the next generation WebRTC standard would look like.
> 
> 
> Bottom line, I urge W3C to adopt Dom’s draft revised charter [2] rather than the one in [1].
> 
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015Apr/0003.html

> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015Mar/0046.html

> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 3 April 2015 17:09:04 UTC