Subject: [rtcweb] Fwd: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:02:04 +0300

Folks,

if you have any opinions on the following thread, which started with the
email below, please send them to the RAI list:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rai/current/msg01372.html

Cheers,

Gonzalo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RAI] RAI processes for handling work effectively
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:03:22 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>

Folks,

as you know, in the RAI area we have always considered having effective
processes to help us produce relevant and timely specifications a very
important issue. When our environment has changed, we have sometimes
modified or fine tuned our processes in order to continue being
effective. A few examples (among many others) of such changes were the
introduction of mentors, the old SIPPING process, P headers, and the
current DISPATCH process.

It is time for us to look at the current state of affairs and discuss
whether or not we need to do certain things in a different way.

In particular, we currently have a few groups (e.g., RTCWeb and CLUE)
that work on higher-level constructions, which use elements developed in
other working groups. For example, CLUE could potentially specify a
mechanism that used mechanisms developed in MMUSIC or AVTEXT such as the
offer/answer model and a number of RTP extensions.

Note that what we called "higher-level constructions" above are referred
to by different names by different people: architectures, applications,
frameworks, etc. It does not really matter how we call them because this
discussion is not about terminology and it is fairly clear what this
type of work is about.

The way this type of work is currently done in RAI requires the
high-level WGs and the WGs developing the individual pieces to
communicate often. Those communications are not always easy, since
different WGs sometimes have different views on priorities,
requirements, use cases, etc.

What we would like to get your feedback on is: do we need a better way
to handle this type of work in RAI or our current process is as good as
it gets?

Note that we are interested in getting constructive feedback and ideas
on how to improve things. Please, focus your feedback on those aspects.

Thanks,

Gonzalo
(on behalf of both RAI ADs)

_______________________________________________
RAI mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai