Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

[Ron <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 03:11:54AM +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Ron wrote:
> >
> > >There has been some criticism over how Opus was developed too,
> > > but it was certainly a much more open and collaborative model than
> > > what has happened with VP8 in MPEG.
> > 
> > Was that "criticism" made in public somewhere, ...
> >
> >...
> > 
> > If my memory is simply failing me, I'd welcome some pointers to things which
> > back up your claims here to refresh it.
> > 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-videocodec-7.pdf

I don't see any of that making a complaint about the process that was
followed or its openness.  Just a 20/20 hindsight look at things we
learned that could have been done earlier in the process than they
actually were.  Considering the amount of new ground we were breaking
in the IETF with that group, a "debrief" like that seems like both a
valuable part of the process itself, and a measure of praise if that's
really the worst mistakes we made somewhere along the line on the
first attempt.


> (But I don't think we should continue this discussion at RTCWEB list.
> The point was not to bash the Opus process, on the contrary.)

I wasn't really aiming to revisit Opus here, I was trying to figure out
what your definition of "open and collaborative efforts for standardization"
actually was.

We've been told repeatedly that the ISO is an "open standards process"
by the proponents of H.264.  Now you seem to be telling us that it's not.

I'm curious about the measure we are supposed to apply to tell the
difference.