14:49:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webrtc
14:49:51 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/28-webrtc-irc
14:49:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:49:53 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webrtc
14:49:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be RTC
14:49:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see UW_WebRTC()11:00AM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
14:49:56 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Real-Time Communications Working Group Teleconference
14:49:56 <trackbot> Date: 28 April 2015
14:53:32 <stefanh> stefanh has joined #webrtc
14:55:10 <Zakim> UW_WebRTC()11:00AM has now started
14:55:16 <Zakim> + +1.408.421.aaaa
14:55:28 <fluffy> fluffy has joined #webrtc
14:55:49 <Zakim> +Dan_Burnett
14:56:17 <burn> zakim, I am Dan_Burnett
14:56:17 <Zakim> ok, burn, I now associate you with Dan_Burnett
14:56:41 <Zakim> + +1.214.475.aabb
14:56:56 <adamR> Zakim, I am aabb
14:56:56 <Zakim> +adamR; got it
14:57:14 <Lags> Lags has joined #WebRTC
14:57:40 <Zakim> +stefanh
14:58:12 <dom> Zakim, code?
14:58:12 <Zakim> the conference code is 9782 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), dom
14:58:25 <vivien> vivien has joined #webrtc
14:58:33 <Zakim> +??P12
14:58:35 <dom> Zakim, ??P12 is me
14:58:35 <Zakim> +dom; got it
14:59:05 <Zakim> + +46.1.07.13.aacc
14:59:45 <dom> Zakim, aacc is goran
14:59:45 <Zakim> +goran; got it
15:00:20 <Zakim> + +1.805.452.aadd
15:00:27 <Zakim> +gmandyam
15:00:30 <goranap> goranap has joined #webrtc
15:00:33 <fluffy> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.408.421.aaaa, Dan_Burnett, adamR, stefanh, dom, goran, +1.805.452.aadd, gmandyam
15:00:43 <Zakim> +??P21
15:00:54 <stefanh> zakim, aacc is goranap
15:00:55 <Zakim> sorry, stefanh, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc'
15:00:58 <Zakim> + +1.425.894.aaee
15:01:00 <fluffy> Zakim, i am aaaa
15:01:01 <Zakim> +fluffy; got it
15:01:08 <gmandyam_> gmandyam_ has joined #webrtc
15:01:13 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
15:01:15 <dom> Zakim, aaee is justin
15:01:15 <Zakim> +justin; got it
15:01:35 <dom> Zakim, aadd is Mathieu_Hofman
15:01:35 <Zakim> +Mathieu_Hofman; got it
15:01:40 <goranap> Zakim, goran is goranap
15:01:40 <Zakim> +goranap; got it
15:01:52 <Zakim> +??P25
15:02:08 <dom> Zakim, ??P25 is EKR
15:02:08 <Zakim> +EKR; got it
15:02:19 <ekr> ekr has joined #webrtc
15:02:20 <Shijun> Shijun has joined #webrtc
15:02:24 <Zakim> +Milan_Patel
15:02:25 <ekr> zakim, who is here
15:02:25 <Zakim> ekr, you need to end that query with '?'
15:02:25 <dka> dka has joined #webrtc
15:02:31 <ekr> zakim, who is here?
15:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see fluffy, Dan_Burnett, adamR, stefanh, dom, goranap, Mathieu_Hofman, gmandyam, vivien, justin, [Mozilla], EKR, Milan_Patel
15:02:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see dka, Shijun, ekr, gmandyam_, goranap, vivien, Lags, fluffy, stefanh, Zakim, RRSAgent, dom, burn, steely_glint, slightlyoff, timeless, stryx`, schuki, geheimnis`, derf,
15:02:34 <Zakim> ... richt_, adamR, decadance, Josh_Soref, trackbot
15:02:36 <Zakim> +Ashok_Malhotra
15:02:42 <Zakim> + +49.351.49.aaff
15:02:52 <Zakim> +??P10
15:02:55 <Zakim> + +44.190.881.aagg
15:03:01 <Zakim> +dka
15:03:03 <spromano> spromano has joined #webrtc
15:03:11 <dka> thanks!
15:03:31 <dka> zakim, who is here?
15:03:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see fluffy, Dan_Burnett, adamR, stefanh, dom, goranap, Mathieu_Hofman, gmandyam, vivien, justin, [Mozilla], EKR, Milan_Patel, Ashok_Malhotra, +49.351.49.aaff, ??P10,
15:03:34 <dom> Zakim, aagg is andy_hutton
15:03:35 <Zakim> ... +44.190.881.aagg, dka
15:03:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see spromano, dka, Shijun, ekr, gmandyam_, goranap, vivien, Lags, fluffy, stefanh, Zakim, RRSAgent, dom, burn, steely_glint, slightlyoff, timeless, stryx`, schuki,
15:03:37 <Zakim> ... geheimnis`, derf, richt_, adamR, decadance, Josh_Soref, trackbot
15:03:37 <Zakim> +andy_hutton; got it
15:03:53 <AndyH> AndyH has joined #webrtc
15:03:54 <dom> Zakim, ??10 is maybe hta
15:03:54 <Zakim> I don't understand '??10 is maybe hta', dom
15:03:59 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
15:04:15 <AshoK_Malhotra> AshoK_Malhotra has joined #webrtc
15:04:20 <mt> mt has joined #webrtc
15:04:24 <Zakim> + +1.604.562.aahh
15:04:50 <dom> Zakim, aahh is ErikL
15:04:50 <Zakim> +ErikL; got it
15:04:59 <Zakim> +Mike_Champion
15:05:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:05:19 <steely_glint> That was me
15:05:25 <steely_glint> from skpe.
15:05:37 <Shijun> zakim, [Microsoft] is Shijun
15:05:37 <Zakim> +Shijun; got it
15:05:40 <hta> hta has joined #webrtc
15:06:07 <dom> Zakim, [IPcaller] is TimPanton
15:06:07 <Zakim> +TimPanton; got it
15:06:35 <steely_glint> Tim Panton - observing - westhawk Ltd
15:06:51 <Zakim> - +49.351.49.aaff
15:06:59 <Milan_Patel> Milan_Patel has joined #webrtc
15:07:13 <vivien> vivien has changed the topic to: WebRTC Teleconf Charter renewal. Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015Apr/0139.html
15:07:32 <Zakim> + +49.351.49.aaii
15:07:45 <MathieuCitrix> MathieuCitrix has joined #webrtc
15:08:56 <dom> ScribeNick: stefanh
15:09:02 <dom> Zakim, who's on the call?
15:09:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see fluffy, Dan_Burnett, adamR, stefanh, dom, goranap, Mathieu_Hofman, gmandyam, vivien, justin, [Mozilla], EKR, Milan_Patel, Ashok_Malhotra, ??P10, andy_hutton,
15:09:06 <Zakim> ... dka, Shijun, ErikL, Mike_Champion, TimPanton, +49.351.49.aaii
15:09:20 <stefanh> hta & dom: trying to identify all callers.
15:09:34 <mt> zakim, [Mozilla] is mt
15:09:34 <Zakim> +mt; got it
15:09:39 <vivien> [/me believes +49.351.49.aaii is Mathieu from Citrix]
15:09:44 <dom> http://www.w3.org/2015/04/webrtc-rechartering.html
15:09:51 <stefanh> First topic: Dom about why we need to recharter.
15:10:06 <MathieuCitrix> Nope I'm area code 805
15:10:12 <stefanh> ....why? History: orig charter approved 4 years ago
15:10:20 <stefanh> ....extended 2 more years
15:10:39 <stefanh> .....reason rechartering process started back in Jan
15:11:05 <stefanh> ....full recharter since the AC has made it clear they want groups to be reviewed regularly
15:11:26 <stefanh> ....given four years without a recharter we decided to recharter
15:11:49 <stefanh> ....draft sent to review in Feb
15:12:02 <stefanh> ....to the AC
15:12:22 <stefanh> ...At the end of the day the Director needs to approve the charter
15:12:35 <stefanh> ....but based on input from WG, AC etc.
15:12:54 <stefanh> ...The changes shown.
15:12:54 <vivien> [slide 4]
15:13:04 <stefanh> ....extend three more years
15:13:26 <stefanh> ....more details on deliverables and deliveries
15:13:44 <stefanh> .....also a WebRTC NG deliverable
15:13:59 <stefanh> ....AC review: 2 formal objections
15:14:16 <stefanh> ...dom worked with objectors to solve
15:14:20 <Michael_F> Michael_F has joined #webrtc
15:14:20 <vivien> s/deliveries/dependencies/
15:14:34 <stefanh> ....resulted in other objections
15:14:46 <stefanh> ....since discussion on the WebRTC mail list
15:14:53 <vivien> [slide 5]
15:14:56 <vivien> [slide 6]
15:14:56 <stefanh> ....Peter T proposed a change
15:15:49 <stefanh> ...new proposal: extend 2 years (not 3), no NG deliverable, add Liasion to ORTC CG, spelled out a bit working process in the WG
15:15:53 <vivien> [slide 7]
15:16:28 <stefanh> ...end date is indicative, can recharter before that
15:17:00 <stefanh> ...e.g if we want to start on NG work before the charter end date
15:17:10 <vivien> [slide 8]
15:17:49 <stefanh> ...decision process shown.
15:17:58 <vivien> [slide 9]
15:18:33 <stefanh> ... consensu today vs. no consensus, objections, etc. (see slide for details)
15:19:11 <stefanh> ....questions/comments?
15:19:35 <stefanh> hta: everyone understands the process etc.?
15:20:17 <stefanh> cullen: dom, did the changes directly reflect the objections made by two parties during the ac review?
15:20:51 <stefanh> dom: they were done to address the objections
15:21:38 <stefanh> hta: we had a dialogue with those objecting, and we then we developed proposed changes that we thought would address the objections
15:22:01 <stefanh> cullen: were the changes _only_ made to address the objections, or were there other changes made?
15:22:54 <stefanh> hta: two conditions, one: the objections we though would be addressed by charter changes were made, two: the charter must in the end make sense
15:23:25 <dom> scribenick: dom
15:23:27 <stefanh> hta: next point: chairs to say what they think about the charter process
15:23:32 <dom> Topic: Chairs perspective
15:23:40 <dom> hta: the charter defines the scope of the WG
15:23:44 <dom> ... the scope of the WG is an API
15:24:02 <dom> ... for basic real time communication capabilities for JS apps
15:24:12 <dom> ... we all want this to get done ASAP but not before it's ready
15:24:21 <dom> ... our first focus is to get a stable spec based on what we currently have
15:24:27 <dom> ... we have to have a charter to be a valid WG
15:24:50 <dom> ... the charter describes what we know we need to do
15:25:00 <dom> ... we don't want to spend too much time talking about the future
15:25:17 <dom> ... we're close enough to the end (hopefully) that we should be able to start discussing the post 1.0 future
15:25:25 <dom> ... we don't want to prevent these discussions
15:25:55 <dom> ... we tried to describe what we thought we wanted to do, without constraining other changes
15:26:02 <ekr> actually I don't necessarily agree with htis
15:26:41 <dom> Topic: Mozilla's position
15:26:47 <dom> ekr: I'm not sure I agree with the approach HTA suggested here
15:27:03 <dom> ... we can either focus on 1.0 and this charter should reflect the work on 1.0 and recharter for NG
15:27:24 <dom> ... a version of that charter would beefing the current charter as suggested by Cullen
15:27:44 <dom> ... The other approach is committing to 1.1/NG with a direction
15:27:48 <dom> ... I sent a proposal toward that
15:28:04 <dom> ... that integrates guidelines of what -NG would be
15:28:23 <dom> ... I'm not comfortable with a hybrid charter that contemplates vaguely NG with an odd liaison to ORTC
15:28:33 <dom> hta: what do you find odd with a liaison to ORTC?
15:28:45 <dom> ekr: I don't think we should be encouraging multiple specs in this space
15:28:57 <dom> ... we should not have two groups not collaborating
15:29:03 <dom> ... the work should happen here
15:29:15 <fluffy> q?
15:29:35 <dom> ekr: I propose extending the current charter, or a new charter with specific 1.1 suggestions
15:29:39 <dom> Topic: Discussion
15:29:41 <dom> q+
15:29:45 <dka> q+
15:29:57 <dom> q-
15:30:10 <dom> DKA: Dan Appelquist, Telefonica
15:30:35 <dom> ... I wanted to first of all that in my capacity as co-chair of the TAG, we had a discussion last week about WebRTC and the rechartering situation
15:30:51 <timeless> s/with htis/with this/
15:31:02 <dom> ... 1st the TAG supports WebRTC as an important work
15:31:11 <fluffy> q+
15:31:11 <dom> ... I hope we can focus back on the work ASAP
15:31:37 <dom> ... Both from the TAG and Telefonica perspective, we would like to see convergence between ORTC and WebRTC 1.1
15:31:46 <dom> ... maybe this can be done now
15:32:05 <dom> ... Telefonica didn't object to the proposals; we wouldn't object to any of the proposals on the table
15:32:21 <dom> ... I don't see a problem with a 1.0 focus with a bit of a staging for 1.1
15:32:29 <dom> ... that's how I read Dom's proposal
15:32:43 <peter> peter has joined #webrtc
15:32:47 <Zakim> + +1.425.610.aajj
15:32:48 <dom> ... I think we all have largely the same goals
15:33:14 <dom> Mike_Champion: Microsoft is one of the formal objector; we worked with Dom and have been very happy with Dom's proposal
15:33:43 <dom> ... good middle ground on focusing on 1.0 and opening the space for discussion on NG when there is more stability on 1.0 and clarity on the evolution of ORTC
15:33:57 <dom> ... I do think it's important that ORTC and WebRTC have a lot of common
15:33:59 <hta> q?
15:34:05 <dom> ... the only disagreement is on the peerconnection API
15:34:06 <hta> ack dka
15:34:27 <dom> ... there is a lot of implementation experience on ORTC that is generating some better understanding of how the high level APIs interact with the lower level protocols
15:34:39 <goranap> q+
15:34:41 <dom> ... I'm happy with Dom's proposal and hope we can just move on with it
15:34:42 <hta> ack Mike_Champion
15:35:04 <hta> q+
15:35:07 <dom> Cullen: I don't think there is some middle ground — either we do 1.1, or we focus down on 1.0
15:35:15 <juberti> juberti has joined #webrtc
15:35:28 <dom> ... I think the time for 1.1 is now; I think ekr's proposal is the best option
15:35:41 <dom> ... I don't see what Dom's proposal enables that we can't do now
15:36:00 <dom> ... there is strong support toward an object-based API inspired by the ORTC group
15:36:06 <dom> ... I don't support Dom's proposal
15:36:31 <juberti> q+
15:36:32 <dom> ... is there some concern that ekr's proposal doesn't address?
15:36:39 <hta> ack fluffy
15:36:56 <dom> goran: from Ericsson, the most important thing is to finish 1.0
15:37:18 <dom> ... no particular preference between ekr [think this meant cullen's] or dom's proposal
15:37:28 <dom> ... we can definitely live with dom's proposal
15:37:37 <dom> ... but we need to finish 1.0
15:37:45 <stefanh> q?
15:37:50 <ekr> The notes seem to kind of be missing cullen's comments
15:37:52 <dom> hta: [speaking as Google, not chair]
15:38:03 <dom> ... the most important thing is to get work done as others have said
15:38:09 <dom> ... integration is going to happen
15:38:15 <ekr> q+
15:38:16 <dom> ... this WG has no control on whether ORTC exists or not
15:38:31 <dom> ... it is a community group which has been granted a name and a space
15:38:48 <dom> ... I think it would be strange to not acknowledge we talk and work with them
15:39:09 <dom> ... My fear is that trying to figure the right guidelines for 1.1 will take significant time for wordsmithing
15:39:18 <dom> ... I think we will be  in much better situation to do so in 1/2 year
15:39:31 <Lags> +1 Harald
15:39:41 <dom> ... I'm thus not comfortable with a 1.1-charter ­ — we don't know what shapes it should take yet
15:39:45 <hta> q-
15:39:55 <hta> ack goranap
15:40:03 <fluffy> q?
15:40:07 <ekr> q+
15:40:08 <fluffy> q+
15:40:22 <dom> juberti: I agree with EKR's framing ­— focus on 1.0 and recharter, or do 1.1
15:40:32 <dom> ... doing the work on 1.1 now will save us time later
15:40:47 <dom> ... if we can't get there, then we can fallback on dom's proposal
15:41:02 <dom> ... I think it would be a denial of reality not to recognize the relationship with ORTC
15:41:18 <dom> ... clearly we don't want a mixed governance model between the 2 groups
15:41:25 <dom> ... but recognizing the relationship sounds a good thing
15:41:49 <dom> ... so would want try 1.1 charter, with fallback on dom's with maybe some massaging
15:41:59 <dom> ekr: first on the liaison's text
15:42:13 <dom> q+
15:42:34 <dom> ... would be silly to deny the inspiration from ORTC
15:42:49 <dom> ... but I don't want to start receiving liaison statements from ORTC CG
15:43:18 <ekr> q-
15:43:21 <dom> ... On 1.1 and visibility on what we should be doing — I thought what I've come up with was a reasonable summary of discussions I've had with several people
15:44:30 <juberti> q+
15:44:36 <juberti> q-
15:44:38 <juberti> q+
15:44:56 <vivien> dom: @@@
15:45:44 <dka> q?
15:45:45 <vivien> dom: from my conversation with the objectors, it was too eraly to understand on what 1.1 will look like
15:45:53 <vivien> s/eraly/early/
15:46:03 <dka> q+ to suggest a middle way…
15:46:41 <dom> cullen: ekr, justin and I agreed on what the 1.1 should look like
15:47:08 <stefanh> q?
15:47:12 <dom> ... but if we can't agree with that, I think we should fallback on a more minimal charter update
15:47:28 <dom> ... would like to get feedback from the ORTC community on ekr's proposal
15:47:40 <dom> ack dom
15:47:58 <vivien> q- fluffy
15:48:02 <vivien> ack juberti
15:48:05 <dom> juberti: if we decide to go down the 1.0 extension path, there has been a concern about competition between WebRTC and ORTC
15:48:16 <dom> ... not referring to ORTC in the charter will make that perception endure
15:48:26 <dom> ... we can argue on the specific words of that relationship
15:48:31 <dom> ... but recognizing it is important
15:48:43 <dom> ... and that would help avoiding these perceptions of competition
15:48:57 <juberti> q-
15:49:05 <dom> DKA: I agree with justin about the perception
15:49:06 <vivien> ack dka
15:49:06 <Zakim> dka, you wanted to suggest a middle way…
15:49:20 <dom> ... those of us having worked in this space know there is more overlap and agreement that this perception indicates
15:49:33 <dom> ... that's one of the reason I supported the idea of having a liaison to ORTC
15:49:50 <dom> ... not to create a joint decision process, but to send a message to the community that we are working this out
15:49:55 <dom> ... that the technology is on the right track
15:49:57 <AndyH> q+
15:50:03 <dom> ... and that the disagreements are being worked out
15:50:07 <goranap> q+
15:50:18 <dom> ... and the people making technical, strategic and business decisions can rely on that technology
15:51:15 <ekr> q+
15:51:21 <dom> ... Given that there is some support here about including 1.1 in the charter, I'm wondering if there is a middle path — extend for 6 months, create a task force between ORTC and WebRTC to converge toward a charter
15:51:52 <vivien> hta: we already extended the current charter, for how many months dom ?
15:52:09 <vivien> dom: @@@ext
15:52:47 <vivien> dom: the advantage of a rechrater instead of an extension is that you don't have this 6 months deadline, it was to give us more freedom on what the right timeline for 1.1 would be
15:53:00 <vivien> ack AndyH
15:53:05 <dom> Andy: DKA talked about the message to the community as important
15:53:22 <dom> ... the community is a bit split and see oRTC and WebRTC as alternative and competing
15:53:40 <dom> ... the charter should clarify that the WebRTC WG is where the future of WebRTC is being decided
15:53:46 <dom> ... if we refer to ORTC, we should clarify that
15:54:00 <vivien> ack goranap
15:54:07 <dom> Goran: when it comes to ORTC and governance, it's clear for us that the API is defined in the WG
15:54:17 <dom> ... but there is a lot of experience and inspiration to be taken from ORTC
15:54:27 <dom> ... A more tricky question is nailing down 1.0
15:55:01 <dom> ... I would like to get a lot more focusing on stabilizing 1.0 and scoping down the protocols / API surface
15:55:06 <juberti> q+
15:55:22 <vivien> ack Mike_Champion
15:55:54 <dom> Mike_Champion: part of the reason  ORTC split off as a CG was because too much energy was expended on the SDP debate
15:56:12 <dom> ... putting the two together makes sense, but we will be back to what we were initially
15:56:28 <dom> ... moving energy away from 1.0 to debating various versions of the future
15:56:49 <dom> ... my best guess is that Microsoft and the rest of the ORTC community could live with a 1.0 focused charter
15:56:59 <dom> ... but the point made about perception applies
15:57:19 <dom> ... that we want to show targeting convergence toward a single community
15:57:40 <dom> ... thus still favour the proposal with a liaison to the CG
15:57:50 <stefanh> q?
15:57:56 <dom> ... I think getting the group to focus on 1.0 is most important
15:57:59 <adamR> q+
15:58:02 <vivien> ack ekr
15:58:32 <fluffy> q?
15:58:39 <dom> ekr: my proposal clearly states work on 1.1 would start post-CT
15:58:41 <dom> s/CT/CR/
15:59:07 <dom> ... the source of disagreement that led to the ORTC CG came from the role of SDP in the API
15:59:38 <dom> ... from what I perceive, these disagreements have now been resolved and my proposal for the 1.1 principles reflect this
15:59:48 <dom> ... would like to understand what the objections to these principles are
15:59:58 <vivien> ack juberti
16:00:20 <dom> juberti: I just wanted to touch on the point that we don't know enough about RTCWeb to finish 1.0 and describe 1.1
16:00:31 <dom> ... for 1.1, we want to give more control via the API surface
16:00:45 <fluffy> I agree with what justin just said
16:00:45 <dom> ... I think we understand better what we want for 1.1 than we knew when we started 1.0
16:00:48 <juberti> q-
16:01:02 <vivien> ack adamR
16:01:05 <dom> AdamR: I agree with Michael's comment on the perception of ORTC/WebRTC
16:01:14 <dom> ... my conclusion is very different though
16:01:32 <dom> ... this should be addressed by folding ORTC into the WG
16:01:47 <dom> ... I think the wording that EKR's proposal have does a good job of showing where the convergence happens
16:02:18 <dom> DKA: I definitely support merging the groups if that can be done — that would be a great message to send
16:02:25 <ekr> q+
16:02:42 <ekr> q-
16:03:09 <dom> ... re distractions of having 1.1 discussions going on in parallel with 1.0 discussions  — nothing prevent having different task forces or calls to avoid that
16:03:17 <dom> ... having a single Wg would be more coherent
16:03:40 <hta> q?
16:03:42 <burn> q+
16:03:46 <ekr> q+
16:03:59 <vivien> ack Dan_Burnett
16:04:32 <dom> burn: I spend a lot of time talking about WebRTC at conferences, esp. about standards
16:04:43 <dom> ... there is a tremendous benefit of being able to show a path forward
16:04:59 <dom> ... combining the groups in a single group would be the clearest message
16:05:36 <dom> ... there is great work going on in the ORTC CG — although I always have to refrain from speaking up too much about it to avoid mis-communications
16:05:46 <dom> ... would like to get more from the ORTC group into WebRTC
16:05:54 <dom> ... but the main group is the  WebRTC WG
16:06:20 <dom> ... re having parallel work streams, that can work if people are different — not clear that would work here
16:06:21 <dka> q?
16:06:47 <dom> ... I think all the charters say we should focus on 1.0 until CR
16:06:59 <dom> ... just want to caution people about parallelizing work
16:07:02 <vivien> ack ekr
16:07:08 <dom> ekr: agree on the dangers of parallelizing
16:07:25 <dka> q+
16:07:36 <dom> ... given the discussions I've heard, there has been support for my proposed charter
16:07:51 <dom> ... so I would like to ask the chairs to take that up to ask for objections or consensus on it
16:08:13 <vivien> ack dka
16:08:18 <dom> DKA: nothing bad to say about EKR's proposal
16:08:33 <dom> ... I have not been heard a lot in the WebRTC space and I recognize that
16:08:53 <dom> ... some of this is coming from the fact that Telefonica is highly invested in this technological space
16:09:00 <dom> ... we would like to see the community coming together
16:09:11 <dom> ... we're betting our technology platform on it
16:09:16 <dom> ... this to explain the context of my comments
16:09:30 <dom> Mike: I would like to remind people that EKR's proposal is less than 12 hours old
16:09:33 <ekr> q+
16:09:34 <vivien> ack Mike_Champion
16:09:42 <dom> ... I would be unhappy to go in that direction without more time
16:10:12 <juberti> q+
16:10:13 <dom> ... putting the groups back together given the past tensions around SDP doesn't necessarily sound like a recipe for success
16:10:26 <dom> ... but I'm not saying we would object to it — we need time to consider it
16:10:32 <dom> ekr: that's totally fair
16:10:49 <dom> ... I think we have more consensus now on what the relationship with SDP now than we had before
16:10:53 <vivien> ack ekr
16:10:57 <goranap> q+
16:11:04 <hta> q+
16:11:10 <dom> ... I'm more than happy to sit down and work out specific changes
16:11:23 <dom> Mike: I don't understand why you have the pen on the charter rather than dom
16:11:35 <dom> ekr: I'm trying to get agreement with interested parties
16:11:48 <dom> mike: but we had been working with Dom on getting something we thought was acceptable
16:11:59 <dom> ... anyway, we'll need more time to look into this
16:12:01 <vivien> ack juberti
16:12:28 <dom> juberti: agree the proposal is fairly now; but I think it's a substantive proposal to get convergence
16:12:33 <dom> s/now/new/
16:12:42 <juberti> q-
16:12:47 <dom> ... but would still be interested in getting the rough sense of the participants on it even if non-committal
16:12:53 <vivien> ack goranap
16:13:00 <dom> goran: Ericsson would also need more time to look into this
16:13:07 <steely_glint> q+
16:13:10 <ekr> goran: I do want to apologize for only getting this this so recently
16:13:18 <dom> ... in particular, the description around SDP — we want to allow innovation in this space
16:13:30 <dom> ... @@@missed
16:13:37 <ekr> … and a major point of this text is to enable innovation without having it be in SDP
16:13:41 <vivien> ack hta
16:13:49 <dom> hta: with my chair's hat
16:14:06 <dom> ... there is no charter that can say there is common control between the CG and the WG
16:14:14 <goranap> @ekr thanks for clarifying, :-)
16:14:25 <dom> ... people seem to be reasonably happy with including a 1.1 definition along the lines of what EKR has proposed
16:14:28 <Zakim> -goranap
16:14:40 <ekr> goranap: If it doesn't say that, please tell me, b/c that's what it's supposed to say :)
16:14:50 <stefanh> q?
16:15:02 <dom> ... the people that have been most active in ORTC seems to be indicating that they would be interested to continue the work under the WebRTC umbrella when we come to the stage of 1.1/NG
16:15:17 <dom> q+
16:15:18 <Zakim> +goranap
16:15:27 <dom> ... and so we should try to add that
16:15:36 <dom> ... and yes, we should not try to boil the ocean
16:16:11 <ekr> +1
16:16:19 <dom> .... can people live with something going in that direction?
16:16:24 <dom> mike: the devil is in the details
16:16:24 <burn> +1 to hta
16:16:42 <ekr> I think they may have lived for more like 11 hours :)
16:16:59 <dom> mike: the ORTC has had the goals of allowing shims with WebRTC
16:17:04 <Lags> q+
16:17:12 <dom> ... but the surface of the shim is what is controversial
16:17:14 <steely_glint> q-
16:18:00 <steely_glint> ekr - I'm really not keen on the 'low level' moniker - but it isn't worth butting in now.
16:18:12 <ekr> seely_glint: feel free to suggest some new text.
16:18:27 <ekr> q+
16:18:43 <vivien> dom: I ma fairly sure I can ask the director for another 6 months extension, but we should then consider it as a strong deadline and we won't get another extension
16:19:05 <dka> Suggest if we do that (the 6 mo extension) we should commit to a task force with a call schedue to work on the next charter – with as much transparency as possible.
16:19:06 <vivien> dom: your proposal doesn't inlcude the -NG deliverable is that missing from your proposal ?
16:19:29 <vivien> ekr: yes I omitted it by mistake
16:20:13 <juberti> I think that is the right thing for a 1.1 recharter - finish 1.0 and then explicitly plan to merge ORTC as part of 1.1.
16:20:21 <vivien> @@@
16:20:26 <ekr> q?
16:20:29 <ekr> q-
16:20:29 <dom> ack me
16:20:37 <ekr> q?
16:20:41 <dom> ErikL: I would like to mirror the comments that DKA made
16:20:44 <vivien> ack Lags
16:20:49 <dom> ... I would love to see the two groups coming togehter
16:20:56 <dom> ... I'm not sure if this is possible
16:21:10 <dom> ... I like the spirit's of ekr's proposal, but it's very fresh and the devil is in the details
16:21:20 <dom> ... extending for 6 months and allowing 1.0 to make its way to CR
16:21:42 <ekr> q+
16:21:42 <juberti> q+
16:21:43 <dom> ... and enabling to look at 1.1 after that
16:21:49 <dom> ... but getting the 2 groups together would be ideal
16:22:15 <dom> ... the liaison with the CG would benefit the WG without implying the decision of the WG would require the CG approval
16:22:26 <vivien> ack ekr
16:22:33 <dom> EKR: one more thing: this is an attempt to distill the principles people agree upon
16:22:54 <dom> ... regardless of whether we adopt this in the charter or not, I really want to get feedback on these principles
16:23:04 <Zakim> -fluffy
16:23:06 <dom> ... because we will need to do so sooner or later
16:23:22 <vivien> ack juberti
16:23:34 <dom> juberti: if we can't agree on these principles, we're much further apart than we though
16:23:45 <juberti> q-
16:23:47 <dom> ... I'm not hearing anyone freaking about, although they need more time
16:24:51 <vivien> dom: @@@
16:25:00 <vivien> harlad: in 6 months we would need to have a new charter
16:25:11 <vivien> s/harlad/harald/
16:25:34 <dka> my suggestion was agreeing a new charter (which merges the 2 groups) in 6 months - not to commit to a 1.0 CR in 6 months
16:25:43 <Zakim> - +49.351.49.aaii
16:25:49 <Zakim> -Mike_Champion
16:25:58 <Zakim> -EKR
16:25:58 <dom> harald: the chairs will thus look into a charter that has 1.1 in it
16:26:01 <dka> I am happy to commit my time to this.
16:26:04 <Zakim> -adamR
16:26:04 <dka> thanks all
16:26:07 <Zakim> -dom
16:26:09 <Zakim> -justin
16:26:10 <Zakim> -??P10
16:26:10 <Zakim> -goranap
16:26:10 <burn> I am happy to help as well
16:26:10 <steely_glint> @ekr - just drop the words.
16:26:11 <dom> Zakim, list attendees
16:26:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.421.aaaa, Dan_Burnett, +1.214.475.aabb, adamR, stefanh, dom, +46.1.07.13.aacc, +1.805.452.aadd, gmandyam, vivien, +1.425.894.aaee,
16:26:11 <burn> bye
16:26:13 <dom> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:26:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/28-webrtc-minutes.html dom
16:26:14 <Zakim> ... fluffy, justin, Mathieu_Hofman, goranap, EKR, Milan_Patel, Ashok_Malhotra, +49.351.49.aaff, +44.190.881.aagg, dka, andy_hutton, +1.604.562.aahh, ErikL, Mike_Champion, Shijun,
16:26:14 <Zakim> ... TimPanton, +49.351.49.aaii, mt, +1.425.610.aajj
16:26:14 <Zakim> -dka
16:26:14 <Zakim> -Mathieu_Hofman
16:26:17 <Zakim> -mt
16:26:17 <Zakim> -Ashok_Malhotra
16:26:17 <Zakim> -stefanh
16:26:19 <Zakim> -ErikL
16:26:20 <Zakim> -vivien
16:26:24 <AndyH> AndyH has left #webrtc
16:26:26 <Zakim> -andy_hutton
16:26:27 <Zakim> -Milan_Patel
16:26:29 <Zakim> -Shijun
16:26:31 <Zakim> -Dan_Burnett
16:26:50 <Zakim> -TimPanton
16:26:52 <Zakim> -gmandyam
16:35:00 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, +1.425.610.aajj, in UW_WebRTC()11:00AM
16:35:02 <Zakim> UW_WebRTC()11:00AM has ended
16:35:02 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.408.421.aaaa, Dan_Burnett, +1.214.475.aabb, adamR, stefanh, dom, +46.1.07.13.aacc, +1.805.452.aadd, gmandyam, vivien, +1.425.894.aaee, fluffy, justin,
16:35:03 <Zakim> ... Mathieu_Hofman, goranap, EKR, Milan_Patel, Ashok_Malhotra, +49.351.49.aaff, +44.190.881.aagg, dka, andy_hutton, +1.604.562.aahh, ErikL, Mike_Champion, Shijun, TimPanton,
16:35:04 <Zakim> ... +49.351.49.aaii, mt, +1.425.610.aajj
16:36:34 <mt> mt has left #webrtc
16:36:39 <vivien> vivien has left #webrtc
16:54:06 <ekr> ekr has joined #webrtc
17:09:31 <ekr> ekr has joined #webrtc
17:29:31 <ekr> ekr has joined #webrtc
17:41:55 <dka> dka has joined #webrtc
17:45:52 <ekr> ekr has joined #webrtc
18:29:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webrtc
18:49:43 <dka> dka has joined #webrtc
20:06:57 <ekr> ekr has joined #webrtc
20:55:20 <ekr> ekr has joined #webrtc
21:52:59 <ekr> ekr has joined #webrtc