- From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 14:46:39 -0700
- To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Dear Chairs, Justin's proposal seems to have agreement from everyone that commented on it. It's been 10 days and not a single comment from the chairs. Why has this not moved forward? Cullen > On May 7, 2015, at 1:14 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: > > > I like your changes. I support that charter. > > >> On May 4, 2015, at 12:27 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: >> >> OK, I have tweaked Erik's proposed text to try to make it clear what the purpose of the new APIs are, by adding a new bullet called "Direct control". >> >> I also performed a few other wordsmithings. Hopefully those in favor of Erik's proposal will also like this version. >> >> Diff from Erik's proposal: >> https://github.com/fluffy/webrtc-charter/compare/alt...juberti:alt >> >> Full proposal: >> https://github.com/juberti/webrtc-charter/blob/alt/proposed-charter.txt >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: >> I agree that NG doesn't really explain what its purpose is, and "object" is similarly vague. >> >> I think it needs the exact goal of this effort needs to be made explicit. I am not wedded to the term "low-level", but somehow the relationship between 1.0 and the new API needs to be described, as well as how the new API differs from the existing API. And to be clear, "does not use SDP" is not an adequate description; SDP does something, so are we inventing an alternative, or specifically leaving that functionality to applications (and thereby moving down a layer in the stack?) >> > >
Received on Sunday, 17 May 2015 21:47:07 UTC