- From: Elad Alon <eladalon@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:36:06 +0100
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAMO6jDPTvLi7TJGjOAb1shsgx53fdxe6MX4Bp4NhJBW0wXShpg@mail.gmail.com>
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