Re: Proposed amendments to WebRTC charter

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com
> wrote:

> What I *think* we do have agreement on is to incorporate objects
> (RtpSender, RtpReceiver, IceTransport, DtlsTransport) into the WebRTC 1.0
> API, roughly along the lines originally proposed by Justin at the May 2014
> interim, and subsequently discussed at TPAC (and partially incorporated
> recently).
>

That's our understanding as well and we support that, I was just hoping to
see a bit more structure here before speaking to it in the charter.

At any rate, not going to stand fast if I am the only one.


> However, I did note some "different understanding" about whether that work
> is "NG".  IMHO, the term "NG" should not be applied to the object work
> which is agreed to be in scope for WebRTC 1.0 API.

________________________________________
> From: elagerway@gmail.com [elagerway@gmail.com] on behalf of Erik
> Lagerway [erik@hookflash.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:57 PM
> To: Adam Roach
> Cc: Dan Burnett; Dominique Hazael-Massieux; public-webrtc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed amendments to WebRTC charter
>
> Adam, I think you might have misinterpreted my comments. I am not saying
> we should omit it because ORTC CG is working on it, although there are
> other participants in the WG who might argue that point.
>
> From my limited experience I have never found that it pays to talk about
> project features long before there is any real plan to implement those
> features. From what I can tell that is roughly 2 years out?
>
> I just don't see the benefit in bringing it up unless there is plan is all.
>
>
> Erik Lagerway<http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | Hookflash<
> http://hookflash.com/> | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter<
> http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog<http://webrtc.is/>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Adam Roach <abr@mozilla.com<mailto:
> abr@mozilla.com>> wrote:
> 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<mailto:abr@mozilla.com>
> +1 650 903 0800 x863<tel:%2B1%20650%20903%200800%20x863>
>
>