Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 4AA1A1AE04D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:45:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 mvuBWWxX9POL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x235.google.com (mail-lb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3BFD1ADF72 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:45:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q8so6605105lbi.12 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:45:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bE+fNXkYeMKq0cufws/R24Enhzu0CQOmVHMes+hCvoE=; b=OrXvjf4E3sdZmPhEI1DY+NyHuoHhRm1G20MWe3SHQLMi0Y97L4LoTVdkWvAv9mep9i kLO3XvcEX+Ff3n6BZuha1rEjyhKjP1f5bzH9UATPIzPHruAEWwl/udCG1010E7lELQYL hXRKtonl/EcGiNK0Zvh9HMBqkLA3ypZzsqwlhQSntDJ/ncyZOE7RW+mHjq44Y+tpH1uP yYFa0F5LEVIWx6Ot1AnJ6qXpkjsxSRuao4+2TUlN3eczj46Rm9j2d5IvY6dzBg5jFBWW t5QUdrHwr9cTVARQrTKTjx4tNm78oJ+ZprxbiANiMFPZssu/ET1mpM6ihAfQFto+tSf1 w3QQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.19.65 with SMTP id c1mr89171lae.49.1385678701166; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:45:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.37.172 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:45:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <529719D7.9020109@cisco.com>
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <529719D7.9020109@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 17:45:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgF-NL=LxaAjkVPVVO6a1oevLvvNqYxn6ug5w-zxdez3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01494308c1890004ec4476e6"
Cc: rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org, IETF Discussion <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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:45:05 -0000

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Gonzalo,
>
>
> On 11/28/13 10:17 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > as you may know, the RTCWeb WG is trying to select a
> > mandatory-to-implement video codec. So far, the WG has been unable to
> > reach consensus using traditional consensus calls. Now, the WG is
> > considering alternative options to make that decision.
> >
> > If you are interested in following that discussion on the RTCWeb list,
> > this would be a good place to start:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html
> >
>
> Let's be clear on what is being suggested: a form preferential voting
> rather than continuing to seek rough consensus through other
> alternatives.  The ramifications of what is being proposed extend well
> beyond the working group.  That is not how our organization operates.
> As Bernard Aboba wrote:
>
> > [BA] It strikes me that once we venture beyond consensus and running
> > code into voting, we have left our home behind for someplace else
> > whose principles should at the least be articulated.
>
> And I would go further.  I would expect a very rough process ride if
> this path is taken, and it should require IETF consensus given the
> potential moral hazards it introduces to other activities.  Failing that
> consensus, the working group should find a way to sort themselves within
> the bounds of our existing processes.
>

It might surprise people to find that I support Eliot's position on this.

I still believe that the NOMCON process is a liability that should be
replaced by a democratic system The issue there is whether there is going
to be accountability and whether people who speak on behalf of the IETF can
do so with authority.

The issue here is different, the question is whether the people who write
an deploy code can come to a consensus. A vote is not  going to make that
happen. If the WG votes for X but a browser provider with 30% of the market
insists that they won't do X, a vote is not going to change matters.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/