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

Re: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:32:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPF_GTYtFEb3W_2h91-jncDB+JX0Vfj5f4_4iusf1s48qDHw-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <abr@mozilla.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
Thanks Michael, it would be a real shame to see us not do this considering
the considerable overlap.

 +1

*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 Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <
Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  > With the proposed removal of any mention of object-related work from
> the charter, any such liaison seems nonsensical.
>
>  There is a lot of 2-way exchange of information between ORTC and WebRTC
> 1.0 even if the new charter doesn’t address the question of whether a
> future version  is solely object-or constrained to support SDP.
>
>  1.       http://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/archives/20150306/webrtc.html
>  and http://ortc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ortc.html have a lot in
> common already, and the larger community of implementers and users would
> surely appreciate that they be kept in sync as much as possible.  For
> example, if ideas incubated in ORTC are imported in 1.0, it would be good
> to avoid arbitrary changes, but changes made in the WG for good technical
> reasons should probably flow back to the CG as well.
>
>  2.       ORTC is being implemented by engineers starting from the spec
> itself as opposed to figuring how to to make existing code interoperate.
> That process has uncovered all sorts of issues in the underlying standards
> that potentially affect WebRTC 1.0 as well. It would be good for people to
> look at, for example, ICE-level issues in ORTC and how they are resolved,
> and consider whether the same issues might plague users of the 1.0 API.
>
>  So, ensuring that the lines of communication are open is a Good Thing
> even if it’s premature to formally constrain one spec to align with the
> other.  Noting ORTC CG as a liaison partner of the WebRTC WG reminds
> everyone that we agree on a lot more than we disagree about, and helps keep
> the disagreement about whether / when to use SDP or objects mutually
> respectful.
>
>
>
>   From: Adam Roach
> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:12 AM
> To: Michael Champion, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)", "public-webrtc@w3.org"
> Cc: Peter Thatcher, Justin Uberti, Göran Eriksson AP, Erik Lagerway
> Subject: Re: Proposed Charter Changes
>
>   On 4/8/15 10:59, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>
> Likewise it excludes the liaison with the ORTC Community Group mentioned
> in Dom’s draft. I think it would be useful to make the liaison explicit
> even though the overlap in membership between the WG and CG means that
> formal liaison mechanisms are probably overkill.
>
>
> With the proposed removal of any mention of object-related work from the
> charter, any such liaison seems nonsensical.
>
> --
>  Adam Roach
> Principal Platform Engineer
> abr@mozilla.com
> +1 650 903 0800 x863
>
>
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 16:33:23 UTC

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