- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:33:21 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Chia-Hung Tai <ctai@mozilla.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Ehsan Akhgari <eakhgari@mozilla.com>, David Baron <dbaron@mozilla.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@mozilla.com>, "Randell Jesup" <rjesup@mozilla.com>, "Kuo, Tzu-Hao" <tkuo@mozilla.com>, "Martin Thomson" <mt@mozilla.com>, "Hu, Ningxin" <ningxin.hu@intel.com>, Rob Manson <roBman@buildar.com>
Hi Martin, Eric, > On 13 Aug 2015, at 19:29, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 13 August 2015 at 03:59, Kostiainen, Anssi > <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote: >> * Reuse the existing Media Capture Task Force (joint activity of the Device API WG and WebRTC WG) for mediacapture-worker [1] initially. The proposal was introduced to the TF already by CTai, and I don't recall hearing any concerns on adding it to the TF. > > Um, Eric raised concerns about this, specifically regarding the > capacity of the group to complete new work when there is a significant > amount of existing work outstanding. Thanks for your feedback. I definitely don't want to slow down the existing work -- my expectation is we can handle that issue by being clever with tooling, and by getting new people to participate and contribute. Tooling. This work would happen in its own GitHub repo to which people subscribe to if they want to. I'm also not expecting this work to steal any telco time, since I believe async participation is preferred. No extra traffic on the public-media-capture or public-webertc mailing lists. People. I'd not expect this work to steal bandwidth from the same people working on existing deliverables, rather get new people to participate and help. I believe CTai has volunteered to edit, and we have a bunch of other people who have indicated interest to contribute, review. While the Timed Media WG may be the long-term home, I'm wondering if we can find an interim solution that allows interested parties to collaborate already now. I'm seeing wider support among implementers and others and it would be pity to hold off this effort due to process reasons (i.e. WG creation takes time). I'm open to suggestions. Eric proposed to form a mailing list for the Timed Media WG and wait. That might be one option. Any concerns with that? Others? Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 18:33:56 UTC