Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

At the outset of this process, I was quite simply excited by the
prospect of a group of talented codec researchers joining forces to
push the limits of their art, with a shared aim of producing the
next generation of codecs, tailored to suit modern transports, and
to the needs of a broader range of application developers, for whom
wide accessibility and interoperability are of paramount importance.
The work on this is already developing well.  But as has been noted
many times by both the proponents and opponents of forming this group,
we will have a far superior outcome on the whole if the collective
insights of these people are combined into a minimal number of codecs
that meet the identified goals, than we would have if each group were
to simply continue producing their own work separately as we have been
seeing to date.  (ironically, that may be the only thing certain to
occur if this proposed group does not ultimately form somewhere)

Real-time audio communication, today, is still a horribly fragmented
and thoroughly monopolised service.  But the internet routes around
damage so it is said, and I have been rather delighted to observe
that very process in action here already.  There are a lot of people
here now who want that to end.  We've already seen some interesting
(and perhaps to some, unexpected) players ante in to take part in the
first round.  I doubt I'd be going far out on a limb to suggest there
will be others, if this first round looks like fun and achieves some
notable results.  Which so far, I have no reason to doubt it will.

As to the question of whether to form this group under the auspices
of the IETF, we've seen a lot of recurring emphasis put upon which
SDO should have the first claim to hosting it, or some special veto
on what it produces.  To my eyes, that sort of ownership angst seems
off the mark.  The organisation that hosts it and may finally proclaim
it gold, is by far secondary to the set of working processes that the
active participants agree upon to resolve their differences and cement
their agreements.  That is what will ultimately decide whether this
project succeeds or fails at its stated goals.  All of these people
could produce quality codecs on their own.  They've already proven
that point so it's not in question.  The interesting question is what
can they do if given just a few simple rules for working together.

It seems quite clear at this stage, that the people who want this work
to begin in earnest _today_, have self-selected on the IETF process.
And despite the enormous elephant in the room, that seems to already
be a working choice.  I fully endorse the creation of this WG, with a 
charter that gives it sufficient freedom to refine its goals, by the 
consensus of the group, as ever better understanding of the problems 
is gained and shared.  A broad range of talents are already assembled 
and professing their commitment to its success, and I'd certainly like 
to see what they can in fact prove if given the umbrella group of their 
choice.  By choosing the IETF, they're offering me a voice to help 
shape that work, based on Real Things I Know.  And/or have the code to
demonstrate.  On about as reasonable and non-discriminating terms as
I could ever likely hope for.

Offers you can't refuse don't get much better than that.
Let's do this!

 Ron