IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 28 November 2013 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 55B821ADF76; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:27:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 hQ-Gsk-P8xxH; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3::184]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AC71ADF5E; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2268820030; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:40:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id AD4D763B88; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBFE63AED; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
In-Reply-To: <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com> <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net> <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:27:33 -0500
Message-ID: <5006.1385666853@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Cc: =?windows-1252?Q?Herv=E9?= <h_o_w_@hotmail.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, rtcweb-chairs@tools.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 19:27:39 -0000

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
    > On Nov 28, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
    >> As merely one obvious example, people can simply be tired of the
    >> impasse and eagerly seek progress and be willing to settle on any
    >> mechanism they think will fairly break it -- even if it works against
    >> the outcome they prefer.

    > The one tidbit you may be missing is that the working group
    > specifically chose not to do a coin toss.  So "willing to settle for
    > any mechanism" clearly doesn't apply in this case.

That tells me that the participants are not willing to live with losing and
move on, and so no voting process will work either.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email