Re: Proposed amendments to WebRTC charter

We have pretty broad agreement among those people who have been active 
in WebRTC development so far that we want to start working on 
enhancements to the overall API, and there is good reason to believe 
that this work will be underway in a relatively short timeframe. It 
seems misguided to omit something that we know we want to work on simply 
because there is a body of existing work that may have some useful 
concepts to draw from.

Given the concerns Erik expresses below, I propose that we strike 
mention of the ORTC CG from the charter and otherwise keep the 
forward-looking language about adding new API surfaces for finer control.

/a

On 3/27/15 11:19, Erik Lagerway wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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>
>
>
>


-- 
Adam Roach
Principal Platform Engineer
abr@mozilla.com
+1 650 903 0800 x863