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

Re: Call for comments: New charter for WebRTC Working Group

From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:28:45 +0000
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
CC: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <555C189D-C2F0-4E8C-8FCB-DD51BB92064E@cisco.com>

> On Jan 19, 2015, at 1:38 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The second issue is all the documents that are joint work with with
>> the DeviceWG. Having theses as joint work substantial complicates the
>> issues of resolving issues near the end the draft.
> 
> I'm somewhat surprised by that comment; my impression had been that most of the overhead that having two groups implied was shouldered by the chairs and myself. And it didn't seem to me that our delays in getting gUM to Last Call had anything to do with having two WGs involved.
> 
>> It's not even
>> really clear what would happen if the two WG had conflicting views on
>> how to resolve an issue in the draft.
> 
> The same thing that would happen if different participants in a single WG had conflicting views (chairs seek consensus, make a decision if none is found, director intervenes if there is a formal objection).

We have not yet finished anything or got it to the stage where problems occur. You want to explain how

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Votes

is going to work out for things in two WGs?
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 22:29:14 UTC

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