Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
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 D0D3D1ADFA4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:54:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 6ODaAW0MkZlR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x232.google.com (mail-ob0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1860A1AD93D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id uz6so8123363obc.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:54:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=w+dbl3a3CBF+tn5d62WnWUTDJxwCVE6QCRifNuIMnyI=; b=E7jPb6qaRR0AV25PQuxefuB+s7Y+1scDCYAuTN+xd5oQeQOPl0hCXGSeWO/vRAfSTB SkQPj5/BvGsXUQdaYZ5CZrZH5PTQKTDAl0qnqo2AjK7Uy+Tb5z66MAJw+ljGCJp8ODZ/ TLFm6vb9lQVYpTURJKEeUx4/YgzxzuU4FG0+skAgZjnb6lCaTzGD6HYtlVSIWYpsC9rR rl5mg6YWTiPN6R/5JSreAv5ABkgitG+qOGSeWVVWxsC4kYSiCo3a9qCM7+UbUNLSyTeJ lI11kKVcB5NmG7SiabzxVJicR4ssrnXwudClXzPcOWNDhCZ2adj7i+dQ7fYttIknW64L 0CeA==
X-Received: by 10.182.215.202 with SMTP id ok10mr8081516obc.62.1385589289373; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:54:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.68.106 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:54:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AA548AE102@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
References: <52935C89.5040408@ericsson.com> <CAGgHUiQnkQKkc-ptMu6DtfUYJY6N9i7PUaeAqKxp96nB2MQBGA@mail.gmail.com> <52936207.5040704@ericsson.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A13302B@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <5295B273.1060305@ericsson.com> <C5B67CF6-44C2-44ED-A087-67D9737870AD@gmail.com> <5295F718.9010603@ericsson.com> <20131127175414.GA87911@verdi> <49D33D9F-BC65-4AE8-B98A-04D3C170F644@phonefromhere.com> <CAD5OKxshm+izp7N_2+rst_hfSCAccddgT-u7KRvbxJz6t5m+0A@mail.gmail.com> <52964309.3060108@bbs.darktech.org> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AA548AE102@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:54:29 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kCFy1G_ZgOkQF-kYXAkfGgHdN=UPm59gH6kDnUNmdeSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <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 <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:54:52 -0000

That begs the question whether when voting one is allowed to click
multiple boxes or just one.

Silvia.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher
<gmartincocher@blackberry.com>; wrote:
> On the process:
>
>
>
> Could we try to reach a consensus by involving a multiple steps process?
>
> Could we structure the MTI question into three questions, with consensus
> being declared on one before moving onto the next?
>
> This way the question is structured as to find the last point at which a
> consensus can be achieved.
>
>
>
> This would look like:
>
>
>
> First step: determine the consensus for an MTI or not:
>
> 7. There is no MTI video codec
>
>
>
> Step two: determine the consensus for the "last resort" codec
>
> 6. All entities MUST support H.261
>
> 6. All entities MUST support H.263
>
> 9. All entities MUST support Theora
>
>
>
> Step three: determine if there is any further consensus on a better MTI
> proposition:
>
> 1. All entities MUST support H.264
>
> 2. All entities MUST support VP8
>
> 3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>
> 4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
>
>     support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>
> 5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>
> 8. 5+$last_resort, i.e. All entities MUST support $last_resort and
>
>     all entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>
> 10. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, $last_resort}
>
> 12. All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and
>
>     MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
>
>
>
> If there is no consensus at step 3, then use the consensus reached at step
> 2.
>
> If a consensus for an MTI is reached at step 1, but there is no consensus at
> step 2, then  no MTI would be defined.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gaƫlle
>
>
>
>
>
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of cowwoc
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:08 PM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process
>
>
>
>
> If you could come up with an alternative that works, great. The only reason
> we are voting is because all other options have failed.
>
> It is my understanding that we have the following options (from best to
> worst):
>
> Come up with a better mechanism for establishing MTI, or
> Vote for MTI, or
> Give up and declare No MTI
>
> Gili
>
> On 27/11/2013 1:13 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>
>
>
> I am not sure about the rest of the group but from my point of view the
> proposed process clearly shows that IETF in general and this group in
> particular is not equipped to vote. I also strongly disagree that voting
> would produce a MTI video codec decision which would meaningful in any way.
> We need a way to find consensus regarding the MTI or drop the whole MTI idea
> (which would also require consensus).
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> rtcweb mailing list
>
> rtcweb@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your
> system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>