Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Matthew,

Since you have escalated this to the area directors after Magnus's replay,
I will leave them to respond to your main request, but I have two
corrections to factual mis-statements:


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> At the in-person meetings, discussing the MTI video codec is
> agenda-exclusive of progressing any other document.
>
>
As attending the actual meetings would have told (or even reading their
minutes), this is simply not true.  We have had sessions related to
resolving this issue, but in every case there have also been other topics
discussed during the same IETF meeting, albeit in sometimes in other
sessions.


> I believe that objecting to the actions of the chairs is a bigger lever
> towards real progress than trying to be the one tiny voice in the corner
> trying to progress something else unilaterally during this storm.
>
>
The chairs have gratefully received and pushed action on reviews received
on a variety of documents during this period, and there has been movement
on data channel and the security documents driven by those who have chosen
to continue to work on those issues.   If you choose to ignore that work to
focus on this issue, that's your choice of how to use your time, not an
imposition by the chairs.  Self-fulfilling prophecies tend to be, well,
self-fulling, but they need not be universal.

I invite you to submit a review of any document currently before the
working group, and I pledge to you that it will get attention from the
chairs, no matter what else is going on.

regards,

Ted Hardie