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

Re: Proposed Charter Changes

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:50:36 +0200
Message-ID: <552BC9AC.90106@w3.org>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
CC: "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
On 07/04/2015 23:11, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> I'm also just a simple engineer, unclear on what has to go in a charter
> and what doesn't.   But it sounds to me like we're all trying to decide
> on and agree upon what "1.1" and "compatibility" mean right now, even
> though we could just as easily decide that later.

+1

> Could we simply
> change the charter text to the this?
> [...]

Thanks a lot Peter for this very constructive approach :)

I've included that proposed change in the "revised" charter branch I 
maintain on github:
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-charter/tree/revision
https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/webrtc-charter/revision/webrtc-charter.html

The full diff with what was sent to the AC can be seen in markup at
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-charter/compare/revision?expand=1
and in a more human friendly version at:
http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebrtc-charter%2Fwebrtc-charter.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.rawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwebrtc-charter%2Frevision%2Fwebrtc-charter.html

While I welcome suggestions for reverting some of the changes that have 
been brought since the AC review happened, I'll note that these changes 
were made based on input from the AC and so these reverts should be 
justified enough for me to get back to those that had made the said 
suggestions for possible further discussion.

> Then we could save all this discussion for what "next version" means after we have the charter to make one, and the process of chartering wouldn't be blocked

FWIW, there have been suggestions that organizing an open workshop 
around what use cases (and not just what shape) a future API should 
cater for; while it's too early for me to commit to anything, if anyone 
has feedback on that idea, I'd very much welcome it.

Thanks,

Dom
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 13:50:54 UTC

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