Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 15/11/2013 11:23 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:42 AM, cowwoc <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Magnus,
>
>     In light of Harald and your responses, I'm in favor of two
>     separate options for H.261 and Theora respectively. If we find a
>     narrow those options down to one within the next two weeks, great,
>     but otherwise I'd list them as separate options.
>
>     Also, how would the "voting" work exactly? I was imagining the
>     following mechanism:
>
>       * Each person is given the 10 or so options we'll end up with in
>         2 weeks.
>       * The person throws out all options they don't consider
>         acceptable under any circumstances
>       * They sort the remaining options in order of preference
>       * We tabulate the results across everyone, assigning a
>         decreasing number of points to the options as the priority
>         decreases (meaning, 1st choice gets the most points, 2nd
>         choice less, and so on)
>       * We publish the results, how many "points" each option had and
>         if there is a huge margin for the top one, it wins.
>
>
> Please please please let's not try to invent new voting systems on this
> mailing list. This is an incredibly technical area
> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem> if you're
> not convinced).
Eric,

I'm not trying to achieve what is mentioned in that Wikipedia post. 
Meaning, I believe it is acceptable for the resulting tally to violate 
the wishes of individual priorities.

But anyway, let's say you still object, what is your counter-proposal? 
What were we planning to do?

Gili