Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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.

Eliot