W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > March 2022

Re: Call for Consensus (CfC): Publish FPWD of "Region Capture"

From: Elad Alon <eladalon@google.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:36:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMO6jDPTvLi7TJGjOAb1shsgx53fdxe6MX4Bp4NhJBW0wXShpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Youenn Fablet <youenn@apple.com>, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@W3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Jan-Ivar, could I get an ETA on your review of this PR
<https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/pull/27> and the conclusion of
this CfC?

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 9:37 AM Elad Alon <eladalon@google.com> wrote:

> I observe that five parties have interacted with this thread so far, and
> that they are all represented on the Thursday meetings.
> If there's anything that could help move this forward, please let me know.
> I'd be glad to do that work ahead of Thursday.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:03 PM Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Comments inline
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 3:49 PM Elad Alon <eladalon@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish I could hear earlier that the document did not appear ready to
>>> you. At any rate, if your set of objections overlaps that of Youenn, then
>>> let's move forward and converge by Thursday, as you have suggested.
>>> Specifically which issues do you see as remaining unsettled since Youenn
>>> first posted his objections? From my POV, only #17 has the ball in my
>>> court, and I don't think this is an FPWD-blocking issue. We can document
>>> disagreement and proceed. Or wdyt?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:38 PM Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Elad, to answer your question: this WG document did not appear ready
>>>> to me, because
>>>>
>>>>    1. it failed to document known outstanding disagreements (they
>>>>    don't have to be mine)
>>>>    2. it failed to represent progress that's been made between CfA and
>>>>    FPW (issues ready for PR)
>>>>
>>>> In my view, it's the editor's responsibility (with help from chairs and
>>>> this process) to ensure the document reflects WG agreement as best as
>>>> possible. I did comment on 3 of the issues, but to clarify for other
>>>> members: there's no rule you have to have commented or filed an issue to
>>>> get a vote— our schedules are busy, so make sure you get your say in while
>>>> the formal process allows it (which is today on this CfC)
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:23 PM Elad Alon <eladalon@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My objection is mild and could have been avoided by getting the
>>>>>> document in shape ahead of CfC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan-Ivar, I don't recall unresolved comments or issues you have filed
>>>>> before the CfC was sent out. Could you explain how this mild objection
>>>>> could therefore have been avoided?
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming there are no more objections, I propose we spend the time
>>>>>> between now and Thursday's editor's call to get *"ready for PR"* PRs
>>>>>> merged, document outstanding *"API shape issues"* disagreements as
>>>>>> Notes in the document, and then proceed with FPWD.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 6:06 PM Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I object to publishing a Region Capture FPWD in the present form, due
>>>>>> to the same issues Youenn mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My objection is mild and could have been avoided by getting the
>>>>>> document in shape ahead of CfC. The process [1] states:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *"For all Working Drafts a Working Group:*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    - *should** document outstanding issues, and parts of the
>>>>>>    document on which the Working Group does not have consensus, and *
>>>>>>    - *may** request publication of a Working Draft even if its
>>>>>>    content is considered unstable and does not meet all Working Group
>>>>>>    requirements."*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming there are no more objections, I propose we spend the time
>>>>>> between now and Thursday's editor's call to get *"ready for PR"* PRs
>>>>>> merged, document outstanding *"API shape issues"* disagreements as
>>>>>> Notes in the document, and then proceed with FPWD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> The *""API shape issues" disagreements"* here in my objection is a
>> reference to Youenn's list titled *"API shape issues" *below [1]
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#maturity-levels
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:10 PM Harald Alvestrand <
>>>>>> harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should we read this as an objection to publishing a FPWD in the
>>>>>>> present form?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/8/22 09:55, Youenn Fablet wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems desirable to improve the quality of the document a bit
>>>>>>> before making it a FPWD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Several issues have been filed and seems to reach consensus (see
>>>>>>> issues labelled as Ready for PR).
>>>>>>> I would tend to go over them and update the document accordingly
>>>>>>> before publishing it as FPWD (
>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/22 and
>>>>>>> https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/21 in particular).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are also a few API shape issues that it would be good to
>>>>>>> decide sooner rather than later, given Chrome is experimenting with this
>>>>>>> API.
>>>>>>> I am thinking of:
>>>>>>> - https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/11
>>>>>>> - https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/17
>>>>>>> - https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/issues/18
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] here.
>>
>> These three (#11, #17, #18) reflect disagreement over shape, sync vs.
>> async, and name, respectively. All three disagreements should be
>> documented, regardless of who's court the ball is in, is what I meant in my
>> objection.
>>
>> Note my objection is in my capacity as a member, not as chair.
>>
>> As for "ready for PR" issues, I observe that since PRs were not merged
>> ahead of the CfC, any normative changes they may contain won't have
>> benefited from broad review. I suppose the chairs will need to exercise
>> good judgement here of whether a follow-up CfC is needed or not. Hopefully
>> we can assess the list of PRs on Thursday.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Y
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28 Feb 2022, at 17:57, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a First Public Working
>>>>>>> Draft (FPWD) of "Region Capture".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The document is available for inspection here: Region Capture
>>>>>>> (w3c.github.io) <https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-region/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The github repo is here: w3c/mediacapture-region:
>>>>>>> http://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-region/
>>>>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-region/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In response, please state one of the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   *   I support publishing a FPWD of the Region Capture
>>>>>>> specification.
>>>>>>>   *   I object to publishing a Region Capture FPWD, due to issues
>>>>>>> filed in open bug <#number>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CfC will end on March 14, 2022.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bernard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the Chairs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2022 13:37:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 23 March 2022 13:37:33 UTC