Re: Proposal to abandon work on “Capture Handle - Bootstrapping collaboration when screen sharing”

On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 1:11 PM Elad Alon <eladalon@google.com> wrote:

> On the one hand: "disagreements seem to be solely over final API shapes to
> standardize."
>

Yes, as far as the state of consensus regarding existing deliverables, this
seems accurate to me.


> On the other hand: "I don't think we should solve more features for
> loosely-coupled applications atm
> <https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-handle/issues/68#issuecomment-1285605351>
> "
>
> There appears to be a contradiction here. It appears that at least some
> disagreements are quite fundamental.
>

That's a comment on a proposal for new work. Even here, we seem to agree
apps communicating information to a capturer may be desirable, and
disagreement seems confined to API shape basically: whether the API should
dictate the structure of such information or be left open-ended for
applications to define. I expressed my preference for leaving it open-ended
rather than getting into listing features.

I don't see how this blocks progress or constitutes a "fundamental
disagreement", since the central feature here is the open-endedness, not
necessarily the structured part. It should suffice to enable apps to
experiment about which features are good and which are not. If some
features turn out popular, this might be good information to inform a later
consideration for adding them.

The major disagreement in that issue however, remains the shape, and I look
forward to seeing my concerns with the current shape addressed
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-handle/issues/68#issuecomment-1414120568

I look forward to engaging with you and other members to resolve the
remaining outstanding issues with the API, now that the uncertainty
regarding the document has been resolved.

Cheers,


>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 5:51 PM Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * The chairs have considered the proposal to abandon WEBRTC WG work on
>> “Capture Handle - Bootstrapping collaboration when screen sharing”, which
>> was presented at the January 17 WEBRTC WG virtual interim. We have
>> concluded that there is no reason to issue a “Call for Consensus” (CfC).
>> CfCs are generally issued to confirm consensus. Since the chairs at their
>> discretion have already determined that no consensus exists for the
>> proposal as currently formulated, we have concluded that issuing a CfC for
>> stopping work in the WEBRTC WG is unnecessary. A Working Group’s scope of
>> work is established in its charter, not in any single published document.
>> Screen capture APIs remain in scope of this WG.  A WG can discontinue a
>> document its members no longer have any interest in working on, in which
>> case the document is frozen and remains. But this does not fit here, as the
>> WG agrees the use cases are valid, and disagreements seem to be solely over
>> final API shapes to standardize. The WG has heard no argument that the use
>> cases are unimportant or that APIs to solve them should be stopped or
>> unshipped for lack of interest. A WG can also send back to incubation a
>> document it feels the WG is not ready to approach. But this also does not
>> seem to fit here since APIs have shipped and general consensus exists for
>> solving the problem the API solves. The chairs will monitor developments
>> going forward. *
>> Bernard
>>
>> For the Chairs
>>
>

-- 
.: Jan-Ivar :.