Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb)
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Sat, 07 December 2013 09:15 UTC
Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.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 C8CFA1AE043 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 01:15:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 uQaZvzGOC2_y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 01:15:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D495B1AD6D2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 01:15:00 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7f2c8e000006d25-17-52a2e70f6288
Received: from ESESSHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B2.2B.27941.F07E2A25; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 10:14:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.126.22] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 10:14:54 +0100
Message-ID: <52A2E70E.4060303@ericsson.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:14:54 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb)
References: <52970A36.5010503@ericsson.com> <52A1AD87.1000706@ericsson.com> <52A1FDEC.70602@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <52A1FDEC.70602@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrS7/80VBBgc/qVr8/vSBzeLZxvks FnN2PWByYPa4tPMkm8eSJT+ZPL5c/swWwBzFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAldHa8Iy94LBCxfKPrWwN jMckuxg5OCQETCTW307tYuQEMsUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCEUeLT8U9QzmpGia9vTjCCVPEKaEus bZzCDGKzCKhIbL5zDizOJmAhseXWfRYQW1QgSuL8uZdMEPWCEidnPgGLiwDVbFvVB2YzCyhJ LP71hhXEFhaIlmhfMBlsppBApsStJy1gNqeAlsTetkvsEIeKS/Q0BkG06klMudrCCGHLS2x/ OweqVVti+bMWlgmMQrOQbJ6FpGUWkpYFjMyrGDmKU4uTctONDDYxAsP34JbfFjsYL/+1OcQo zcGiJM778a1zkJBAemJJanZqakFqUXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQbGghtn3KM407aZhBtqRoTummT0 xXfbpIcWVwueW7wMuKD4PLFQvv3cofsTnxUa/19yQq6Zu657bu2JttjU9qWXtzMW3ZLQ+xK5 vPvepI/bipzCw+L76jQLvsWEScw8I2lYuPN9SQc3+9Gs5zyOlj8ff5sxd07ODNOOD2sKV9TN 2z0h+55Ugu9dJZbijERDLeai4kQANaos2S0CAAA=
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: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 09:15:04 -0000
Hi Dave, to be clear and somewhat more concise, the WG does *not* intend to replace any part of the consensus process in use in the IETF. The next step for the WG is to work out what statement about codecs it is reasonable to include in the next revision of the document (an Internet Draft). That document will then go through the typical WG discussions, WGLC, IETF LC, IESG evaluation, and approval. As usual, at any stage the document will be discussed and possibly modified. So, what the chairs are proposing is a way for the working group to work out a statement about codecs around which they can build consensus. Of course, nothing guarantees that consensus will be actually achieved. With respect to the actual process being proposed, the chairs have listened to all the feedback received from the RTCWeb community and the IETF community as a whole. Taking all that feedback into consideration, they are going to be proposing next steps shortly. They have not done so yet simply because the flu hit them hard last week. Cheers, Gonzalo On 06/12/2013 6:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Gonzalo, > > > On 12/6/2013 2:57 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Where people seem to disagree, often strongly, is on how proposals that >> will be put forward for such evaluation by the WG and the IETF community >> can be generated. > > That's odd. I hadn't even noticed that that was part of the proposal > for voting circulated to the community, nor that it was a focus of > responses. > > From Magnus' original posting of the proposal: > > "A large number of documents, over an extended period of time, with > nothing published, suggests some deep and serious problems for an effort > in the IETF." > > That's not about generating proposals but about choosing among them. > > >> On a related note, there have been some comments about the RTCWeb chairs >> effectively attacking the IETF principles. I think those comments are >> unfair. We are talking about three former ADs in different areas all of >> whom have made significant contributions to the IETF community along >> many years. > > As financial reports often note: "Past performance is not a guarantee of > future returns..." > > More significantly, Gonzalo, you've just invoked an ad hominem argument > as a defense (or justification.) It's no more legitimate as a defense > than as an attack. Stated simply: the nature of the people who made > the proposal is irrelevant. What matters is the nature of the proposal. > > And my own reading of the criticisms of the proposal that was circulated > was that they did primarily focus on the nature of the proposal, rather > than on the nature of the proposal's authors. > > But as long as you've made this personal, what happened to the general > preference in the IETF -- especially for efforts that are complex or > otherwise difficult -- to have working group chairs /not/ be document > authors, so that the chairs can focus on /neutral/ efforts at managing > the process? > > While there are never guarantees about the progress of an IETF working > group, such a separation might have had strategic benefit for this > effort. I note a number of points of broader concern about this working > group: > > 1. Chartered 1.5 years ago. > > 2. 11 working group drafts, with 13 related drafts. > > 3. Nothing yet published. No overviews, architectures, > use cases or anything else foundational, nevermind actual > specifications. > > 4. WG can't even resolve choice of a component technology > > > Frankly it does not help that the effort already seems to have excellent > market and IETF mindshare as the 'future' of Internet 'rich > communications'. Even the recent IAOC request for a volunteer is > calling for "exposure" to the technology -- although the technology > isn't stable. > > A large number of documents, over an extended period of time, with > nothing published, suggests some deep and serious problems for an effort > in the IETF.. > > What am I mis-understanding? > > > d/ >
- 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