Re: Proposed amendments to WebRTC charter

We can appreciate the desire to include mention of ORTC, it's an excellent
API, with a solid following (latest draft shipped 2 days ago:
https://www.w3.org/community/ortc/2015/03/26/updated-ortc-api-3252015/),
full disclosure, I am chair of the ORTC CG.

That being said, it doesn't strike me as particularly prudent to be
referring to future work around objects in the WG until we have agreed to
talk about a plan with that in mind. Either we come up with a plan or leave
the copy out until we all can agree on the creation of said object plan(s).

/Erik


On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com> wrote:

> I'm fine with the updated proposed charter, with the exception of the
> removal of the following text:
>
> "As the name implies, WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers
> is to be considered as a first version of APIs for real-time communication.
> The working group will, once WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
> Browsers reaches Candidate Recommendation, consider working on a new set of
> low level object-oriented APIs for real-time communication. The activities
> in the ORTC (Object Real-time Communications) Community Group indicate that
> there is interest in a new set of APIs. As part of this consideration, the
> group will reevaluate its deliverables and milestones, and may reconsider
> its scope. "
>
> I would prefer that this text go back in.  It does not require a
> deliverable -- rather, it explicitly informs the public that the group will
> revisit its deliverables, milestones, and scope at this point.  Note that
> this only applies once the WebRTC spec reaches Candidate Recommendation,
> which it should easily do within the 2-year charter timeframe.
>
> -- dan
>
> On Mar 20, 2015, at 3:56 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As you may be aware, our proposed new WebRTC charter received formal
> objections during the Advisory Committee review. Since these objections
> were made in a Member-confidential setting, I'm not at liberty to give too
> much detail about them, but they essentially focused on our proposal to
> include a WebRTC-NG deliverable when the group hasn't reached LC for any of
> its current deliverables. You can find more about the objections at
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/webrtc-2015/results
> >
> > Working with the Chairs and the objectors, I've proposed an updated
> charter that removes the -NG deliverable, adds a liaison to the ORTC CG,
> and offers clarifications on our mode of work; the said charter and the
> diff to the one that was sent for AC Review are attached to this message.
> The said updated charter was acceptable to the objectors.
> >
> > My expectations with this new charter would be that we make use of the
> proposed liaison to the ORTC group to develop a common understanding in the
> upcoming months, leading to a rechartering that includes an -NG converged
> deliverable once WebRTC 1.0 reaches stability and interop.
> >
> > I have been consulting the AC Representatives that reviewed our original
> proposed charter, and I was asked to bring these modifications to the group
> for discussion before bringing the charter to W3C Director approval.
> >
> > As an aside, since formally speaking this group is out of charter since
> the beginning of this month, depending on our pace of convergence on this
> proposal, I might have to request an extension of our expired charter to
> the Director to allow us to continue publishing technical reports (e.g.
> hopefully a Last Call of getUserMedia).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dom
> > <diff.html><webrtc-charter.html>
>
>
>