Re: [rtcweb] Locus of API discussion

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 09/07/2013 4:40 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 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?
>
Hi Eric,

     It's my understanding that public-webrtc is for discussing the 
WebRTC API, and RTCWeb is for discussing the WebRTC wire protocol.

     Three weeks ago I posted a summary of discussion points that came 
up in the WebRTC World conference (most of which had to do with the 
WebRTC API). To date, I have not received a reply from any of the people 
you have listed. I am unable to gather the necessary momentum to turn 
these points into action items without your help. I was/am frustrated 
that the spec editors and vendors are responsible to engage the 
community on these matters, but did not. I hope this clarifies what I meant.

     On a side-note, I do not view the SDP discussion as a response to 
my post. This discussion was well under-way beforehand and only made up 
one of the seven points I brought up. I would appreciate it if multiple 
stakeholders would address each of the points I brought up.

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

     That's fine. I don't mind moving all API discussion to this list, 
so long as they actually reply this time.

Thank you,
Gili