Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 03:52 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 480611ACCEB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 19:52:31 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 RqfEX3dHaFxJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 19:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8881A1F3F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 19:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4273A0C31; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 19:52:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from new-host-4.home (pool-108-36-249-250.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [108.36.249.250]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 457E43A0C30; Sun, 1 Dec 2013 19:52:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <529C03FA.1070100@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 22:52:26 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <tsl4n6wk09e.fsf@mit.edu> <48016D6E-6B76-4DC9-A6AD-6F9FCE8BAF0E@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <48016D6E-6B76-4DC9-A6AD-6F9FCE8BAF0E@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 03:52:31 -0000
For Inter-Domain Multicast Routing, there was one working group. When it could not converge, both protocols were published as Experimental. Several years later, well after we knew what had eventuated, we moved one to the standards track. (Part of the delay was that the winner badly needed a rewrite for readability.) Yours, Joel On 12/1/13 6:43 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > +1 > > i.e., maybe N=0 in this case > > changing the basic genetics of the IETF is not warranted in this case (imo) > > in the past (e.g., multicast routing) we formed two WGs and the problem worded itself out > (one WG produced a result) > > Scott > > > On Nov 28, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> wrote: > >>>>>>> "Gonzalo" == Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> writes: >> >> >> Hi. I've thought about the general issue of alternative decision making >> a lot, and it did come up a number of times while I was an AD, although >> none with such significant stakeholder interest as this. >> >> The issue I'm most concerned about is confirming that there is rough >> consensus to make a decision. I think any variance from rough consensus >> for decision making must itself meet a fairly high consensus bar. >> >> "But we can't make a decision; we have to make a decision, so of course >> we're going to do something alternative," you might say. >> >> You don't have to make a decision though. You can decide the IETF is >> not the right forum for your decision. You can decide not to >> standardize. You can decide to run experiments, get data, try to >> implement. You can give up. >> You can redefine the problem. You can for example decide to have two >> mandatory-to-implement options, or require receivers to implement both >> and not mandate which senders must pick. >> >> In many cases it does turn out to be easier to get consensus that a >> decision must be made than it is to get consensus on a decision. >> However without chairs being able to clearly show that consensus to >> decide has been reached I'd expect an appeal and expect that appeal to >> be successful. >> >> Next, it's strongly desirable to get consensus on your process for >> making the decision. >> If you can get that, or lacking that, get consensus on someone who will >> decide the process (chairs or AD), I think you are coming along >> reasonably. >> >> Obviously concerns of fairness are important. A process that inherently >> advantaged one company or viewpoint would be suspect. >> >> I'd personally favor coin-flips, external arbitors or similar over >> voting. We don't want to encourage voting because we could get into >> situations where people block the consensus process in order to force a >> vote. Absent things like well-defined membership and procedures to >> avoid one company stuffing the ballot box, going there seems >> problematic. >> >> Coin flips are nice. They really create pressure among anyone who >> actually cares about the outcome to compromise, to explore whether a >> consensus can be built. However for the frequent situations where a >> decision is critical but it really doesn't matter (even if some people >> think it does), they get the job done. > >
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Jari Arkko
- Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eliot Lear
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative … Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eliot Lear
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Rescorla
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Lemon
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Sam Hartman
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Rescorla
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Cullen Jennings
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Lemon
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Melinda Shore
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Tim Bray
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Yoav Nir
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Michael Richardson
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Lemon
- RE: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Bernard Aboba
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Roberto Peon
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Stephan Wenger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Roger Jørgensen
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Melinda Shore
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ofer Inbar
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb cb.list6
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Hardie
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Melinda Shore
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Paul Hoffman
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Hardie
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Avri Doria
- RE: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Mary Barnes
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Ron
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb cb.list6
- Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decision p… Eric Burger
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… cb.list6
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Mary Barnes
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Carsten Bormann
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Pete Resnick
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Jari Arkko
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Dave Crocker
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Sam Hartman
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Sam Hartman
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Martin Thomson
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ofer Inbar
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Eric Burger
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Jim Gettys
- 0, 1, or many standards and their impact (or not) Eliot Lear
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Hector Santos
- Re: 0, 1, or many standards and their impact (or … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Jari Arkko
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Eric Burger
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… David Singer
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Eliot Lear
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Dave Crocker
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Timothy B. Terriberry