Re: On the way to CR for webrtc-pc

So the definition of a CR is 

"is a document that satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements"

I have not see significant feedback from the WG to indicate that we the document meets that bar. I do not take silence as agreement that it does. Perhaps we are at that point where the document is at that level - I really hope we are. But I think it would be worth getting a a few people, including someone from each of the chrome and firefox teams, to do a top to bottom review of the spec and see what folks find. 



> On May 1, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> On 01/05/17 15:30, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> I'm not sure if this is reasonable or not. the question is who has
>> actually reviewed the current document start to end to make sure it
>> all hangs together and also matches with the IETF documents. If we
>> had a specific set of names of who had done that, I think it would be
>> easier to decide.  Do you know who has review it ?
> 
> I don't know (apart from chairs and editors) who has read the document 
> start to end, but we have asked people in the group to review it several 
> times (we've also asked other groups to review it - and received comments).
> 
> The fact that big parts of the document has several implementations is 
> to me a sign that it has been reviewed - all implementers (I assume) has 
> read the document when implementing (and filed Issues when things are 
> not clear).
> 
> Speaking of Issues: that the count of github Issues and Pull Requests is 
> now at 1149 is another sign of reviewing - and note that we only moved 
> to github in the fall 2014, we had another bug tracker before that.
> 
> The APIs and features specified in webrtc-pc are also widely used.
> 
> Given that going to CR is done to [1]:
> 
> "- signal to the wider community that it is time to do a final review
> - gather implementation experience
> - begin formal review by the Advisory Committee, who may recommend that 
> the document be published as a W3C Recommendation, returned to the 
> Working Group for further work, or abandoned.
> - Provide an exclusion opportunity per the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33]."
> 
> my personal view is that we're fine when it comes to reviewing. People 
> tell me that for a document this complex we'll iterate at least once at 
> CR, so I'd like to get to the first CR now.
> 
> Going to later levels (PR, Rec) puts higher requirements (not least 
> regarding testing). I think we're fine for CR.
> 
> Cheers,
> Stefan
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#maturity-levels
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 1:30 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
>>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> as announced [1] our ambition is to request the transition to CR
>>> during this month. We received no negative feedback, so that is
>>> what we're working towards.
>>> 
>>> We've made good progress on the open Issues, and think we will be
>>> able to resolve them satisfactory before the end of the month.
>>> We're doodling for one more Virtual Interim just in case we need a
>>> meeting to resolve some issues (and it's early May so that would
>>> move us into next month) [2].
>>> 
>>> Since we in [1] asked everyone to file new Issues for everything
>>> they wanted addressed before asking for transition to CR, and that
>>> is about a month ago, we plan to label new Issues raised between
>>> now and the transition request "to be dealt with after transition
>>> to CR has been requested" or similar, and deal with them after the
>>> transition request has been issued.
>>> 
>>> Let us know if you think any of this is unreasonable.
>>> 
>>> Stefan for the chairs.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2017Mar/0063.html
>>> 
>>> 
> [2]
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2017Apr/0025.html,
>>> http://doodle.com/poll/ecs5efy9r5f9747e
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 1 May 2017 20:26:50 UTC