Re: On the way to CR for webrtc-pc

FWIW, I have not recently read the document e2e. I tend to think we should
actually have
several people attest that they have done so recently before we advance to
CR.

-Ekr


On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>
> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>