IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Mon, 09 December 2013 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 D2B5C1AE548 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:30:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 dq5RZLKxKo1I for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5B41AE547 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id as1so7047142iec.41 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:30:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/DkUy77E4T/Q+GxMgbV1sKsawtfC9f+Nah4asXu45WY=; b=CB+rQTYqUDyUKtORyZ4fK/o4u7YPjedhXiFbXUkYnI/Bh9Hjnh7hJxQW1ugyv9ylXA 9g8eyPwBfqw659XAOWmdmcVESZdx95H5GQwXMbCY6fdqT3jt5r6SLnvbuck0Egr83O88 j9QSIPB9dByHifSjykU/1z0Bi3gYP3pSj4V6mkS2mBCeEdzVrPV/HI6e4AfYKohTEzVe z9HvRLJta8W3lZioByYTlWBOSDOM04EaIjHo+2VFKKFLYpWnUJPbrnaiwfC9rRtcL503 YKkeiZTHj1CbBw8kC1tFA1lfgGrEpJRhMO2qCaSSiZamF/ei7oJu9mGgws/wQXqIf4Hw Yq2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm2pWxvSamgtTaSPt0g8MIHyksqz6A+8o8211VGeki5Mp1QHFsJI/AkOAXDPVcy7kuwXdTD
X-Received: by 10.50.30.166 with SMTP id t6mr17380260igh.7.1386621038354; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:30:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t4sm16332223igm.10.2013.12.09.12.30.37 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52A62859.20003@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:30:17 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBSpDLJBBbPxgyMUi+bi3aw3D8zpSXcAvQ4koi115QqBg@mail.gmail.com> <52A603B8.3090904@dcrocker.net> <E25D14E7-7936-4C92-ADFC-A8CE36DCE980@cisco.com> <52A60DF2.6010301@dcrocker.net> <52A61481.5050005@bbs.darktech.org> <52A62805.6030004@librevideo.org>
In-Reply-To: <52A62805.6030004@librevideo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 20:30:45 -0000

On 09/12/2013 3:28 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 02:05 PM, cowwoc wrote:
>> What about this?
>>
>> Yes: I am in favor of this option, and would implement it.
>> Acceptable: I am neutral on this option, but would implement it if it is
>> chosen as MTI.
>> No: I am against this option, and would not implement it even if it is
>> chosen as MTI.
>>
>> Gili
> This is still unbalanced, I believe, for many of the same reasons.  What
> about, "I am against this, but I will implement it even if it is MTI".
> This conveys an entirely different idea about feelings on an issue.  The
> person would have chosen differently if given an option, whereas neutral
> means they actually don't care about this vs. another option, meaning
> they're the same for the purpose.
>

I'm fine with changing the middle option to "I am against this, but will 
implement it even if it is MTI". To me, it conveys the same feeling that 
I meant with the previous text.

Gili

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email