Re: [rtcweb] Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 11/7/13 16:41, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> If we still believe from an engineering perspective that WebRTC ought
> to have one MTI video codec it still can, even though the counts were
> split:   We can invoke RFC 3929 4.4 and_flip a coin_.

I do not believe the decision under consideration qualifies for the 
process in section 4.4. As that section itself notes, random selection 
is only appropriate for something like deciding a numerical codepoint or 
a DNS prefix.

Our situation is radically different: there are a number of actual 
arguments to be made for both options.

I think an external review team (section 4.1) is a reasonable way 
forward, as it lets the decision rest on the merits that proponents of 
each approach have themselves put forth, without allowing partisan or 
emotional considerations to get in the way of facts.

I'll make an even stronger statement: I would contend that any strong 
push against the use of an external review team amounts to a tacit 
admission by an individual that the arguments for their preferred 
position are insufficiently compelling.

If anyone believes that their position logically follows from the known 
facts, then they would necessarily believe that a randomly-selected 
panel of neutral third parties will agree with them. If such a person 
thinks that the panel won't, perhaps they should reevaluate whether 
their arguments are grounded in facts and logic, or their own emotional 
investment in this decision.

/a