Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@meetecho.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 C699D1AE2AB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:02:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 RB9vIw9i3U2A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpdg11.aruba.it (smtpdg6.aruba.it [62.149.158.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C529D1AE2AD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:02:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rainpc ([87.6.118.125]) by smtpcmd04.ad.aruba.it with bizsmtp id sL251m00r2iQqnr01L25E2; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:02:06 +0100
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:02:05 +0100
From: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
To: Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
Message-ID: <20131121210205.61c44ef2@rainpc>
In-Reply-To: <CAEqTk6RMnxshnCwG-48A=GHM0hh_Msw9u6z2RsWfUN_XYdqePg@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> <CAEqTk6RMnxshnCwG-48A=GHM0hh_Msw9u6z2RsWfUN_XYdqePg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Meetecho
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.1 (GTK+ 2.24.19; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:02:18 -0000

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:46:46 -0800
Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>; wrote:

> 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.
> 


Considering that a considerable part of the attendance at the last RTCWEB meeting session was made of people who didn't even know what RTCWEB was, I can't but agree with you.

Lorenzo


> 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


-- 
Lorenzo Miniero, COB

Meetecho s.r.l.
Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
http://www.meetecho.com