Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net> Thu, 21 November 2013 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
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 60A211AE162 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:46:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=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 FjcAO6UCn_2H for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:46:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22e.google.com (mail-ie0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F711AE04D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:46:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id at1so405783iec.33 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:46:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crocodilertc.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HaQErZBZWbv/sRLVsuaOahb8Sthpv0lHtOO9FxNZCt8=; b=AWA1OMjl1Ul4tqIxGF8ZjLSX2JcGQC5eWOVd7qSaj+v4/nLF1xyaJGrtUYzDTtInu3 spIoclyhSAo803JhzF8ilG9S8sNDN6NFhxFNAyDEYA5KqQIVFKAAlHrSKFEDD6dfpbbv UlmRt/6dkmUKCCqtHfaJhzAXJkrY0SkVDTV+4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HaQErZBZWbv/sRLVsuaOahb8Sthpv0lHtOO9FxNZCt8=; b=ibYyTYdL6wKk3slzbCIhkfeY3+/5hpa+gpezIdlrsGq+I3XvQ1Z26vIj95o6F/vgIx oEMbDbs63CrcpBjQt8BJ2fy544umtxSjL/wzar6pZ/hTZwzaVwhYQmwYuHHF1Xzv+SQN O0nh2el+VAmja3t3cmvHWqWizdbW+Mad1ZUh0Zar4lwVJlCJv7sP6O8/CqtcVRqFbVya CHbSqsITOJfTxXfHZb34uRC4pVfLCgRQLq6ZUed16sUwJrmGHab9nzGHBO9zMid7t8+a 5OrY6UVuuNYZiP3379LH5/W7npOgRImFKZPcS643uMFcOMjVmOznhI0/PpdWwaiTbMUA lVWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmx0YEUAwfG/pS5cZ0YVT1VKECiZ1ifoTB11i64pMS6br3b8lI61tLM+2Knjvvinv2GhhD9
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.114.168 with SMTP id jh8mr6820268igb.6.1385063206407; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.229.13 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:46:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp8n2na+x3a-Ftnz4j4Zgzo_eviPqCw80Npq2bO4womDBF0CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <CAHp8n2na+x3a-Ftnz4j4Zgzo_eviPqCw80Npq2bO4womDBF0CA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:46:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEqTk6RMnxshnCwG-48A=GHM0hh_Msw9u6z2RsWfUN_XYdqePg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01229f8668e9d104ebb5281c
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection 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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:46:55 -0000

Hello,

I am sure there are many people on the blue sheets who have never
participated on any of the mailing lists.  My point is that to be fair (and
as this is controversial it must be fair) if they get a vote because they
showed up in person those of us who showed up online should get a vote too.

I am based in the UK, so the late in the day meetings at Vancouver were at
incredibly anti-social times for me.  Still, it was important and I made
the effort to stay up and participate in the only way I could.

There is also a consistency issue here.  Those of us on Jabber were able to
(and encouraged to) participate in the consensus process, but it has been
proposed that we be excluded from the vote.  Really, you should either be
able to participate through Jabber or not in a consistent way.

Regards,

Peter



On 21 November 2013 11:37, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
> > On 11/21/13 10:56, Justin Uberti wrote:
> >>
> >> Following an IETF meeting on Jabber doesn't count as participating?
> >>
> >> The "big guy vs little guy" narrative continues...
> >
> >
> > I think that's a bit specious. If someone is following the issue at such
> a
> > distance that they haven't expressed an opinion on the mailing list, I
> can't
> > see how taking a vote from them counts as anything other than simple,
> > old-fashioned ballot stuffing.
>
> They might have just been active on the W3C webrtc list and watched
> here to see what is happening with codecs, but haven't expressed their
> position.
>
>
> > I'll take it one step further. I find the prospect that we're allowing
> blue
> > sheets to stand in for participation to be highly questionable: letting
> the
> > tourists vote is weighting the opinion of demonstrably uninvolved (or
> > less-involved) parties at the same level as those who have actually been
> > working on the topic. I do not think that a blue-sheet sign in without
> any
> > on-list participation should be sufficient to participate in the kind of
> > process the chairs are proposing.
>
> We could add that participation on the W3C webrtc list also qualifies.
>
>
> > Or perhaps I'm missing something. Is there something about the
> capabilities
> > of "the little guy" that makes sending an email an unrealistically high
> > barrier to entry?
>
> To address the little guys even more, we could also add that
> participation on the discuss-webrtc list also qualifies.
>
> Just my 2c worth.
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>



-- 
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd