Absolutely. I agree this debate should be resolved in the group, and the charter should specify that this question (whether or not we need to specify a protocol, and then if so, what it is) is in scope. I send some proposed text for charter wording along these lines. Of course, that doesn't mean we cannot start the debate early. And indeed, since we have, I chimed in ;) -Jonathan R. Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. SkypeID: jdrosen Chief Technology Strategist Mobile: +1 (732) 766-2496 Skype SkypeIn: +1 (408) 465-0361 jdrosen@skype.net http://www.skype.com jdrosen@jdrosen.net http://www.jdrosen.net -----Original Message----- From: rtc-web-bounces@alvestrand.no [mailto:rtc-web-bounces@alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Adam Roach Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 10:39 AM To: Jonathan Rosenberg Cc: rtc-web@alvestrand.no; 'DISPATCH list' Subject: Re: [RTW] [dispatch] Does RTC-WEB need to pick a signaling protocol? On 1/29/11 8:35 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
I'm starting a separate thread on this, since I don't want to confound it with the charter discussion. This is a topic that should be resolved within the group itself
I have a number of thoughts on this topic also, but I don't think this (DISPATCH) is the forum for them. I'd like for these conversations to take place, though, so I want it to be clear in the charter that we aren't precluded from choosing one path over the other. Is it fair to characterize your statement that "this is a topic that should be resolved within the group itself" to support leaving the charter open enough to support any consensus conclusion that discussion may reach? /a _______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list RTC-Web@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web