Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> Sat, 30 November 2013 13:45 UTC
Return-Path: <rogerj@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 A6DFF1AE437; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:45:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 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, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 CfiySP74k57l; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:45:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8479A1AE42E; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:45:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id k14so7755059wgh.22 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:45:10 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=65RbuuqEZ5DTkTFyD/A+sRFZFL2sQoiWuXWtaiPWIio=; b=VM4VJxfIe0S6hLYMsg/5kwEiZZQ5oCUuT5f+VCLj+mVsT+eyiXBzQFaGZDcrpmntMp E3lxWvBociTxhlqBUKIhOlM8nKVtFkqWlfWIRrT7JnvOTZ3aA/esLS7v+S+XYOt/Emvt YAMTj3Brc9tGRwfHWkOclCA61e7cNjxVfSEQdfC8zZ7BymfTtweMmHP41sHpdwwlU1Ta Icc0t3uOiWMVCoVjLzrFr/wq/CqaG/q85R18guCGu/oN1nUJH0154eJFLt+YSyFMZC9h V+RNnXtB+Kczx4oebKJ93LJgyE4YRWoLOXLfeWmE7SNinWA60687lhab6E/gz1b4+1iV hOnw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.208.4 with SMTP id ma4mr10700193wic.43.1385819110138; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:45:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.89.4 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 05:45:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:45:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKFn1SHMBG=Rwq8SNJkPz6EUD9O9P+0gTD569_5eXc7ndBpYRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
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: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:45:14 -0000
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: > While I appreciate the difficult position the chairs are in, I don't > agree with the approach and I believe it is inappropriate for the > working group to make such a decision. Working groups don't vote. Want > to change that process? Better gain IETF consensus first. And I will > argue against any such attempt. There are plenty of other standards > bodies that do vote. Go to one of them if that's what you want. Have to agree on this, no voting. And if the problem is that bad, that it's impossible to reach consensus in the WG, what about replacing the chairs? ... --- Roger J --- > Eliot > > On 11/28/13 2:35 PM, Hervé wrote: >> Dave Cridland wrote: >> >>> 2) If the Working Group does want to mandate a single codec, is there >> consensus for one of the alternate decision-making processes described >> in RFC 3929? This is our best guess at what to do here; despite it being >> a (presumably expired) Experimental track RFC. >> >> >> RFC 3929 has been mentioned on the rtcweb mailinglist and during the last meeting. >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/maillist.html >> http://ietf88.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#RTCWEB_II >> >> >>> If nobody else appeals the decision, then I will - assuming I'm allowed to - if it gets this far. >>> it's not clear to me that there is a consensus surrounding the voting >> rules - they've certainly yet to be summarised in one place based on the >> discussion that has occurred so far. >> >> No decision yet. Per >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html today >> is the last planned day for comment/discussion on the _proposal_ to vote, >> before the proposal gets updated. A further call for consensus to use >> the proposal would follow after updating. >> Perhaps you'd like to get involved now rather than later. >> >> >> Here's what I sent to someone else regarding the proposed schedule: >> Nov 28 last day of comment/discussion period on proposed _voting process_ http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html >> >> after Nov 28 WG chairs will update, if necessary, the process proposal >> after update normal IETF process to reach consensus about adopting the (updated) process proposal >> >> +2 weeks last day of the consensus call about adopting the voting process >> >> >> IF consensus was reached to use the voting process in those 2 weeks after the update for that process, ONLY THEN would the (2 week) voting period start (if that wasn't changed in the update/concensus call). >> >> So the voting process can theoretically _start_ Dec 13 at the earliest, if accepted. Probably later (if ever), given that updating the proposal is unlikely to be instantaneous. >> >> >> I hope that made it clearer. The source for this is the bottom section of http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html >> >> >> - Hervé >> > -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
- 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