W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > May 2017

CR Exit criteria again (was Re: Notes from May 2nd VI)

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 08:55:19 +0000
To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AM5PR0701MB27249692E48941AC0957E176C9E20@AM5PR0701MB2724.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
On 06/05/17 22:51, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> On May 6, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Also it was noted on the call that we do not have a clear idea of
>> what are our exit criteria to exit CR.
>
> [BA] The Process Document only talks about entrance criteria for
> phase transitions. So rather than asking "How do we exit CR?", the
> question is  "When can we advance to PR?"
>
> For PR, the question is whether there is sufficient implementation
> experience for the specification.

There was a discussion in April [1][2][3][4] that concluded that a 
suitable CR exit criteria would be

"To go into Proposed Recommendation status, the group expects to
demonstrate implementation of each mandatory feature in at least two
deployed browsers, and at least one implementation of each optional
feature".

Are there reasons why we should change this in any way?

Stefan

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2017Apr/0010.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2017Apr/0012.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2017Apr/0013.html
[4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2017Apr/0016.html
Received on Friday, 12 May 2017 08:55:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:50 UTC