- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 11:54:09 -0800
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABcZeBMqKSB_aQVC7CdY73nP7VFkhpEVi6EnuG7_6ujwtbYBeA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > Personal opinions...... > > On 01/18/2015 04:38 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > > This WG is woefully behind on every milestone and many people would > argue is biting off far more than it can chew. > > I would put this a bit differently - the WG has proved very bad at > estimating when it could finish the work it has taken on. At multiple > times people (including me) have said things like "we have to finish > this by time X otherwise we will be too late", and tried to plan > accordingly. In hindsight, that was a mistake. > > > Once the discussion of 1.1 starts happing I believe it will overwhelm > many other things including any ongoing work on 1.0. For that reason I > dont' believe we should start the low level / object oriented API > discussions until after we have WebRTC 1.0 complete. > > Substantially agree, but with one important proviso: > > Discussion of 1.1 WILL happen - in fact it IS happening. The only thing > we can try to influence is the forum and the formal status - not whether > or not it is happening. > > > > > Specifically I would like the text in > > > > The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication > Between Browsers is considered stable enough, consider working on a new > set of APIsfor real-time communication. > > > > changed to > > > > The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication > Between Browsers is finished (at CR), the consider working on a new set of > low level object oriented APIs for real-time communication. > > The wording was chosen to give ourselves wiggle room to "do what's right". > > I have never taken an API spec from PR to CR, so I have very little > insight in how much of the time spent there is actual work that should > be blocking other things, and how much is "waiting for someone to cross > the last T". > > I'd like to hear comments from others on whether "considered stable > enough" or "finished (at CR)" is the more reasonable milestone for "the > WG will try to encompass the 1.1 work". I would prefer to have a concrete milestone, not a promise to make an assessment. I would be willing to listen to arguments about whether PR, CR, etc. are the right milestones. > > > > > 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. 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. Because of this I do not think theses should be spread across > two WG unless there is a specific reason to do so. I know that the reasons > we originally did this have changed - both Microsoft and qualcom and listed > on the webrtc members page thought I don't know their actual status - so it > is not clear we should follow the same path with new specifications. > > So far, we have not encountered this problem. > > If splitting the work into two fora makes sense at all, I see no reason > to change our current setup - and if we have two fora, the document > split we have seems to make sense for those fora. > > I agree with Cullen that it would be better to just have one WG. -Ekr > > > > > > Thanks, Cullen > > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 15, 2015, at 3:36 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> > wrote: > >> > >> Dear Working Group participants, > >> > >> As you may know, the charter of the WebRTC Working Group is expiring at > >> the end of next month (February 2015), after having been extended for > >> two years in February 2013. > >> > >> The Working Group chairs feel that the group’s charter should be renewed > >> rather than just extended this time around. Renewing it means we can > >> change the text of the charter to make it reflect more accurately our > >> current work, and gives a chance to W3C Members to review that work 4 > >> years after it initially started. It is also an opportunity to list > >> explicit new directions the work might go into. > >> > >> The chairs and staff contact have thus developed a new draft charter for > >> the group: > >> http://w3c.github.io/webrtc-charter/webrtc-charter.html > >> > >> The changes it brings to the charter compared to our current charter can > >> be reviewed via the commits made on github: > >> https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-charter/commits/gh-pages > >> > >> or through the diff between the two documents: > >> > >> > http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2011%2F04%2Fwebrtc-charter.html&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwebrtc-charter%2Fwebrtc-charter.html > >> > >> At a high level, these changes consist of: > >> * making our current list of deliverables explicit and assign estimated > >> dates of their progress on the Recommendation track > >> * adding a mention of a WebRTC Next Generation API > >> * updating the list of dependencies to other groups from which we will > >> be seeking reviews of our work > >> > >> Given that our current charter expires at the end of February, and given > >> the required time to renew a charter (which includes review by the W3C > >> management followed by a review by the W3C Advisory Committee), we would > >> like to proceed with the renewal process as soon as possible. > >> > >> As such, and unless a WG participant requires more time, we would like > >> to ask for review and comments before end of next week (January 23rd). > >> > >> Given that the charter is on github, suggestions of changes as pull > >> requests would be welcomed; except for minor editorial corrections, > >> these suggestions need to be brought to this list for discussion to > >> ensure all the group participants are aware of potential additional > changes. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Harald & Stefan as Chairs > >> > >> -- > >> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark. > >> > >> > >> > > > -- > Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark. > > > >
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2015 19:55:17 UTC