Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:11 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 09/07/2013 11:33 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> The recent set of API discussions has been spread across both the rtcweb
>> and public-webrtc mailing lists.  That's making it both harder to follow
>> and harder for folks to work out who is saying what under which rules.  The
>> chairs of both groups believe that the right place for the discussion to
>> continue should be public-webrtc.  Please direct follow-ups on this topic
>> to that list.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Ted Hardie
>>
> Ted,
>
>     I agree, with one caveat: virtually none of the high-level
> stakeholders (spec editors, browser vendors, etc) bother to engage the
> community on public-webrtc.
>

I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Is it that the aforementioned
"high-level stakeholders"
aren't engaging or merely that they are only engaging on RTCWEB? If it's
the former, than
I don't think that's actually true, since in the past week, you've had
responses from (at least)
the following people who fall into those categories:

Cullen Jennings (spec editor)
Adam Bergqvist (spec editor)
Peter Thatcher (works on Chrome)
Me (works on Firefox and Chrome; spec editor)
Christer Holmberg (spec editor)
Several people from Microsoft.

Who, exactly, are you expecting to engage that hasn't engaged?


If your complaint is just that they're engaging on the wrong mailing list,
well
that seems to reinforce Ted's point above.

-Ekr




    What's the point of discussing the API on this mailing list if our
> opinion goes unnoticed? We shouldn't be moving the discussion to
> public-webrtc as a nice way to filter us out. This discussion requires
> their attention, be it on one mailing list or the other. I don't mind where
> we discuss it, so long as they get involved.
>
>     Is it their intention to get involved on public-webrtc and summarize
> the results on rtcweb?
>
> Thanks,
> Gili
>
>