Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing

> 
> The market can figure out the comparative quality question on its own.
>

What is even more funny, is that now we see more arguments against having a standard at all.

Let the market decide !

> -----Original Message-----
> From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Gregory Maxwell
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:25 PM
> To: Roni Even; codec@ietf.org
> Subject: [codec] comparitive quality testing
> 
> Roni Even [ron.even.tlv@gmail.com] wrote:
> > I do not mind if the WG will decide to remove the quality claim and
> continue
> > with developing  a royalty free codec with "good enough" quality not
> saying
> > it is better than other codecs.
> > I just think that it should be clear from the charter and requirements
> what
> > is the purpose of the work.
> 
> It's funny how we can argue and argue, only to later realize that it comes
> down to a simple mutual misunderstanding.
> 
> I thought everyone was already on the same page with respect to the
> goals: it's good to be as good as possible, but the chartered purpose
> of the WG was only to do a "good quality" codec that was suited
> to the listed applications and deployments.
> 
> As a developer I know that quality testing is important, and of course
> we've done a lot of it of various types.  I strongly believe in scientific
> testing, so of course my first instinct would have been to do it here,
> but perhaps the reality of the consensus process makes that less
> reasonable-as others have pointed out, most other WGs don't really
> do anything comparable to quality testing.
> 
> Likewise, making sure the outcome is as legally unencumbered as I can
> is also very important to me,  but because of the vulgarities of the
> process and the law, this isn't something that the working group itself
> makes promises about.
> 
> So, perhaps it makes sense for the working group to not make any quality
> promises in the same way it makes no promises about patents.
> 
> It seems clear enough to me now that we can much more easily come to
> consensus about achieving good-enough status than about formal testing
> gates and requirements.
> 
> We should accept your suggestion-drop all the comparative quality
> requirements from the requirements draft, and stop discussing comparative
> quality here-and then make some progress on technology, rather than
> continue bickering about details where we are not going to come to
> consensus.
> 
> The market can figure out the comparative quality question on its own.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec