IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Unacceptable - (Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Mon, 09 December 2013 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 DC9731AE40B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:01:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 MLT2hjT2eF4B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:01:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716E91AE406 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:01:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1437; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386612060; x=1387821660; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=PIYVzwr2ZG1At7XEcIVRyn2MTC9eQq65mGHq7y3TgqM=; b=C/KQQTudYWXG4ALc13Rfpdy7pfEFjWqaJql6RA/GusXASyqhXDc23v17 QWn1ls8ECkz8C9p6OHR+VHaf9mWPnglchghl68Wl3/Svc0mXbMb7Aa4oG 4A2LXoJBl+DHRrtePKjSxy0TiT7ruhL32N4ZWPPZFvfVjfZdjMtxydPb1 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAOoEplKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U6cbkXqBMBZ0giUBAQEDARhhBQsCAQgYLjIlAgQOBYd8BsFaF45dMweDIIETA5gUgTCQY4Mpgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,859,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="290168376"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2013 18:00:59 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB9I0xpF019457 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 18:00:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.231]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:00:59 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "<dcrocker@bbiw.net>" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Thread-Topic: Unacceptable - (Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)
Thread-Index: AQHO9QfVqpJ+CbdQM0+yRzuXEarrJZpMi78A
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:00:58 +0000
Message-ID: <E25D14E7-7936-4C92-ADFC-A8CE36DCE980@cisco.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <52A603B8.3090904@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <52A603B8.3090904@dcrocker.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <360260EEE972F0438A6016F546E8AE83@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Unacceptable - (Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives)
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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 18:01:06 -0000

I don't think the chairs feel like we need that level of detail in trying to figure out what consensus call we might make. 

On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
 wrote:

> On 12/9/2013 9:24 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> The first question is “Are you in favor of this option
>> [Yes/No/Acceptable]:”. These three levels allow you to indicate that
>> you: Yes= I would be fine with the WG choosing this option. No = I
>> really don’t favor this, and it should not be picked. Acceptable = I can
>> live with this option but I prefer something else to be picked
> 
> 
> Survey methodology remains trickier than anyone would like:  The set of choices is unbalanced.
> 
> In effect, two of the three choices say that a choice is ok and only one says it isn't.  You also need a 'don't care' choice.
> 
> Given the intent of 'acceptable', what you need is something like:
> 
>   Yes
>   Prefer yes
>   Don't care
>   Prefer no
>   No
> 
> The first and last indicate simple, direct views, without indicating feelings about alternatives.  They might imply "yes means only this is acceptable" and no means can't live with this choice", but that probably doesn't have to be made explicit.
> 
> The second and fourth add those preferences for and against alternatives.
> 
> d/
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email