Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Emil Ivov <> Fri, 22 November 2013 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0611ADFA5 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:20:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51oZiCCZdeo7 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:20:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB9C1ADEA1 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:20:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id uo5so1503785pbc.11 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:20:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=8+cMseVtQDF6z4upoJmu6EWZQPCnWZR8LOxvfHW/MDg=; b=G1wYAmT79aCF6IiB+MyIyWuwxCQ3cwucn+BZOKnISkkX9o8vLjTWBBftUlgRtOL2hh vmSmW+rDHsyH+AeizXnElBJhIohi6SXzb2XM/8X5QV6+qzUDxtyAC/QFxzZ2dwqatuBz dhsmeaSyrBglaFhvlP3PvZdjfzDAS2OfNz3KC2BZ0g4Bwkt3xlBFgB3EEZz4/RSL6+VV iyXTeE9JtAS/g7D14NikrLg8qBYs9fLVUlxN5ZqbtH9w/7O9c+X45kIDZ3fhYI/Se6XF xMqE7czKPKXHkQgTWjSfcLu8XirrqsklTB5gfRqibFOvSQdiWB2fyzG0wd5NQhsw1nK0 xZ4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmRduIWaJKcJ+o8nUiFIVpWX0j/+OzUi1r6JNGu4ma2j6IRGJXBwrmUMPWC/A0g5X0bbwKy
X-Received: by with SMTP id gt2mr3594648pbb.61.1385137241740; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id yh1sm54235809pbc.21.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:20:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y13so1448427pdi.19 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:20:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id gl5mr1624850pbc.195.1385137241174; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:20:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:20:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Emil Ivov <>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:20:21 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:20:50 -0000

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar
<> wrote:
> On 11/22/2013 10:49 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <> wrote:
>>> * Steve Donovan wrote:
>>>> I am personally uncomfortable with the process as proposed.  I am one of
>>>> those referred to as a "lurker" in previous emails.  This is my first
>>>> post to this mailing list.  I have, however, read hundreds/thousands of
>>>> emails sent to this list.  I have also signed the previous three rtcWEB
>>>> blue lists.  I have not participated in meetings via Jabber.
>>>> I do NOT think that inventing arbitrary criteria for determining if I am
>>>> eligible to vote is a good precedent to be setting in the IETF.
>>> The proposed criteria boil down to that anyone who can point to public
>>> IETF records of their past participation in the Working Group can vote.
>>> That is the most predictable set of criteria, and not arbitrary at all.
>> It does however produce a voter base that is of arbitrary relevance to
>> the choice that we are trying to make.
>> Emil
>> --
> I'm not intentionally trying to be contrary here, but the ones making
> the choice are exactly the ones mentioned - those that have, somehow,
> participated

Exactly, and the result is that this specific group of people get to
express their preference while everyone else doesn't

Why? What does make the former group more qualified than the latter to
make a choice that would impact the Internet? Are they somehow
expected to

A) have better understanding in international patent law?
B) possess considerable knowledge on existing video related patents worldwide?
C) have better knowledge of video encoding mechanisms?
D) possess Solomonic wisdom and capability to properly balance the
WebRTC ecosystem?
E) wield Psychic skills?
F) represent 51% of the expected WebRTC population?

I haven't seen any indication to that.

What I have seen is an intention to ask frequent flyers and SMTP users
to tell us what their favourite horse in the race is.

> (with some kind of documentation)

I don't think anyone has so far mentioned participation with
documentation as part of the criteria.

> in any of the venues
> through which IETF operates and discusses the matter at hand.
> How else should someone's relevance for voting be determined?

It can't be. It shouldn't be. That's why the IETF does not vote.

> (historically) makes decisions via consensus at meetings and on e-mail
> lists.

Decisions via consensus are very, very different than opinion polls on
a subject where lack of consensus has been demonstrated.

If we can't reach consensus then we are in no position to mandate.