IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586001AE49D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 08:08:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PD-aUA-Fmf1k for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 08:08:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6671AE45A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 08:08:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1756; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386000491; x=1387210091; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=7ULuy+9OpEL8x33wjVWHWPRtRElJWuIeGuVgdX4co2E=; b=Cl1NqtfwxxoyLTR45Q3hbd++ep8FvSOffiDV3arQC79XRhK/aTJIsKI+ a3l1XOlrKzcaO64GXrOS69XltOsub3VO+JYKyJMNZzLPGMONEykdn21n8 izee8gdPkstJmOfcvJAdJyF2ndLXgI8EnkNSv/xH1v6KmZdA+TQrOt8lg E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFADGwnFKtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABZgweBC7hkgSUWdIIlAQEBAwEdKiUKAwULAgEIGC4hESUCBA4Fh28DCQa0OYRRDYZgF4x3gS8RAR0zB4MggRMDiQqNH4FrjFqFOYMpgXE5
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,811,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="288751764"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2013 16:08:02 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB2G82Sa011232 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 16:08:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.231]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:08:02 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
Thread-Topic: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
Thread-Index: AQHO73is0jgHVFlALka7B0m0iueN/A==
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:08:01 +0000
Message-ID: <8610FB3A-D931-4B89-A753-CA64B8AA80DB@cisco.com>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <CAKFn1SHMBG=Rwq8SNJkPz6EUD9O9P+0gTD569_5eXc7ndBpYRQ@mail.gmail.com> <529A0A4A.1040107@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <529A0A4A.1040107@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <3A0FDFE22F97E842A49BD227E66A9639@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:08:18 -0000

On Nov 30, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/30/13 4:45 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> And if the problem is that bad, that it's impossible to reach 
>> consensus in the WG, what about replacing the chairs? ...
> 
> Not for failure to gain consensus, by any means.  "No consensus,
> do nothing" is a legitimate (if frustrating) outcome.  I think
> they showed really questionable judgment in calling for a vote
> and laying out eligibility criteria, and for me that's a huge issue
> (congratulations, guys - just like that you changed us into a
> member organization) but failure to gain consensus is a valid
> outcome.
> 
> Melinda
> 

We have NOT called for a vote. We have NOT even sent out an consensus call to see if there is consensus to use an alternative process. We sent an email to discuss that possibility. I really wish people would actually look at what is going on. 

I would like to point out that this discussion has been going on for years and has had several consensus calls, and straw polls have already been taken on it.  The alternative consensus process being discussed included everyone that had previous been involved in any way whats so ever in the discussion or expressed any opinion on previous consensus calls on subject.  Its not totally unreasonable to think that most people that cared to be part of the decisions had already been involved in being part of the decision and this included all them. For folks that have been following this, yes updated proposal which includes the jabber folks but that has never been sent to list due to still waiting on other things. 

(Cullen - one of the co-chairs for rtcweb)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email