Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2687F1ADF8F for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:02:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 MF-7UkW3dzoM for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:02:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp002.apm-internet.net (smtp002.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FEE1ADF59 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:02:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 98951 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2013 18:02:26 -0000 X-AV-Scan: clean X-APM-Authkey: 83769 12479 Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp002.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 27 Nov 2013 18:02:26 -0000 Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB49918A043E; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:02:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.157.132] (unknown [192.67.4.35]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54B9918A0207; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:02:26 +0000 (GMT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\)) From: tim panton In-Reply-To: <20131127175414.GA87911@verdi> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:02:25 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <49D33D9F-BC65-4AE8-B98A-04D3C170F644@phonefromhere.com> References: <52935C89.5040408@ericsson.com> <52936207.5040704@ericsson.com> <5295B273.1060305@ericsson.com> <5295F718.9010603@ericsson.com> <20131127175414.GA87911@verdi> To: John Leslie X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822) Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:02:30 -0000 On 27 Nov 2013, at 17:54, John Leslie wrote: > Magnus Westerlund wrote: >>=20 >> For the proposed voting process see our previous message >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html >>=20 >> As I stated, we chairs will need to update this based on the = discussion. >=20 > I gather the WGCs intend to update that tomorrow. >=20 > While I would _much_ prefer not to mix discussion of the process > with discussion of the alternatives, there are some really serious > problems with this proposal. In the spirit of sheer mischief, I=92d like to propose that individuals = who work for organisations that would directly profit from the gathering of = license fees should be requested to recuse themselves from the votes involving those = fees, due to conflict of interest. - This is the norm in voting for local government here in the UK. Whilst I=92m not entirely serious, I am raising this to indicate what = happens when you start to make up process on the fly. Tim.=