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

["Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <[e-mail]>]

Also please note that I am objecting to the lack of WG consensus on following the *entire list* of "next steps" called out in the introductory mail http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html and not simply the act of the chairs calling for a straw poll.

If not simply a veiled version of the "vote" - which it is, given that the next step is that the chairs will identify "an option" based on the results of said straw poll and issue a consensus call on that single option - I do agree that a straw poll is something that does not *necessarily* require Working Group consensus to conduct. However, both the particular and detailed form of this straw poll, and that continuing this discussion has caused a major disruption to the Working Group progress on any other issues are both highly concerning, and that is what forms the basis for my objection and subsequent escalation.

For reference, the above-mentioned list is quoted here:

  -- Conduct a straw poll to gather information on which option might achieve consensus
  -- Chairs identify an option based on the results of the straw poll and issue a consensus call
  -- If there is consensus (as judged by Richard Barnes), the selected option is reflected in a WG document
  -- The WG document is confirmed via the normal process of WGLC and IETF LC


Matthew Kaufman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman
> (SKYPE)
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:33 PM
> To: Magnus Westerlund; Ted Hardie; [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo;
> Richard Barnes; Cullen Jennings; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Matthew's Objections: was Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video
> Codec Alternatives
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >
> > No, we have not requested WG consensus for this one. This is a
> > decision we chair have made ourselves. And the reason for this is
> > while the previous process proposal did require WG consensus to be
> > used, this information seeking is something we chairs can initiate,
> > perform. In this case we do believe that the time is best spent on
> > performing this pool rather than discussing if it is going to be done
> > or not. The WG will by the end of this poll have more information and
> > a better understanding of the positions and objections against the various
> alternatives proposed.
> 
> Spending the Working Group's time on picking an MTI video codec at this
> point is just as disruptive to the vital work the WG needs to complete as it
> would be for me to stand in the corner of the next WG meeting continuously
> blowing a vuvuzela.
> 
> Since taking up valuable meeting time on this topic and considerable mailing
> list thread with this topic, we are no closer to a decision, and much more
> importantly, it appears that zero progress has been made on nothing else
> that the WG has signed up to deliver.
> 
> > > I am requesting that the chairs immediately suspend the "Straw Poll"
> > > described below until such time as there is Working Group consensus
> > > to spend the Working Group's time and energy conducting the poll
> > > and/or to continue with the subsequent steps called out in "Next
> > > Steps in Video Codec Selection Process" at
> > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html
> > >
> >
> > The WG chairs believe they have good motivations and rights to call
> > for this straw poll. We will not suspend it. If you like to escalate
> > your objection please contact our Area Director Gonzalo Camarillo.
> 
> I believe that the "straw poll" is both a thinly veiled recasting of the original
> "vote" proposal *and* that the Working Group is having its time and energy
> wasted on this progress.
> 
> As a result, I am not confident at this time that the chairs are directing the
> Working Group in a way that will produce its chartered output in a timely
> manner.
> 
> The Area Director is already copied and I would like this message considered
> as escalation of my previous objection and request to suspend the poll.
> 
> Matthew Kaufman