Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Steve Donovan <> Fri, 22 November 2013 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4FD1AE3FA for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:57:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.12
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RknwYUu0KXSN for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8111AE3F9 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:51098 helo=SDmac.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <>) id 1Vjt6Y-00010B-05; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:57:14 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:57:13 -0600
From: Steve Donovan <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010403020703080409010705"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
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 15:57:23 -0000

I've seen at least three criteria defined, each with its own logic and
each with its own flaws.

1) List posting by chair decided date + blue list
2) List posting by a chair decided date + blue list + Jabber participation
3) List membership + other related involvement where the burden of proof
of that involvement rests on the shoulders of the would be voter.

Labeling these "arbitrary" was maybe inappropriate.  My point, however,
is that the IETF does not have experience with running this kind of a
vote, at least not to my knowledge.  Attempting to define criteria at
this stage does strike me as a bit arbitrary and a process rife with
opportunity to actually lengthen the time it takes to make a decision.


On 11/22/13 9:28 AM, 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.