Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process

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,
>
> Gaëlle
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>