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

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

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:03:25 +0100
Message-ID: <54BFA39D.4030601@w3.org>
To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 20/01/2015 19:30, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Given the short upcoming deadline, it might be most practical to shoot
> for a short-term renewal (6-9 months) focused on completing WebRTC 1.0.
>    Assuming that work goes well, then we could move on to discussion of
> a re-charter for NG work.

We could extend the charter instead of rechartering the group; but the 
charter has already been extended by 2 years 2 years ago, and there is a 
growing movement (discussed among other things in the W3C Advisory 
Board) to avoid long charter extensions, so as to leave a chance for the 
Advisory Committee to re-assess and evaluate the usage of W3C resources.

In other words:
* we could extend the charter for 6 to 9 months, but it may or may not 
be accepted by W3C management

* we could recharter with the existing charter for 6 to 9 months, but 
rechartering is a fairly expensive process, and I doubt such a short 
rechartering would go down well either

Since in effect the proposed new charter (at least) aims to achieve the 
same purpose as your suggestion (keep the work focused on WebRTC 1.0, 
leave NG discussions till later), I'm not convinced either alternatives 
is really worth the cost and uncertainty.

> With respect to the scope of a WebRTC 1.0-focussed charter, my
> impression from the May interim was that there was consensus to add
> Sender/Receiver objects (which I believe will be integrated in the next
> Editorís draft) as well as other objects (IceTransport +  DtlsTransport,
> wasnít sure those are in the upcoming draft).  Iíd like to see that work
> finished and included in WebRTC 1.0, and if we focus on this, it seems
> doable within a short-term renewal.

The group has agreed to that plan and that will indeed be soon reflected 
in the editors draft.

That being said, that level of details isn't really needed for the 
charter (at least the way it is currently written).

Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2015 13:03:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:03 UTC