Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Wed, 27 November 2013 19:08 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 66D851ADEB1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:08:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 KvFOTPAEy8oV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com (mail-ie0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0291AD72A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:08:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id to1so12556753ieb.18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:08:40 -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; bh=6aELhWJZEERlazUN79PYfbheQrjq852pQw6m7QgBdq4=; b=dU7DF1YXO4SRK3YLvee1RvLOM4uvGDQADHWrEeUYDGUShz55kjQajg0Yldwbqg8+0K DuRJ8GnGerysI/VNjERDpBC1Gub+dyuC0Py1qSW+UGGcaqlfoZcHvT8ebpcyPCuNljX+ GWj4AStKej4UIUM3riYfDxHDREYwz40YiD4kBZRvBI9HLnFdpAPttM2pHfmvptxmgXHe nHMySwgS54pXJu4whkOBzPY50bWPk64HuBvW+PJ1mmd0F8Y439t81dxU3ckf+Pveauei ZPA/XLq9+HL0oaE7iCDHIrKbKxJ1qORqarS2OG/hlvW3T49/T9rDBBUeOM/aZtpRKZ+j xCzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlWSNBuYOrtG+rkRDDe83Cld24lnKUaS8rMwgIWWqb24+x5/KH4QAnJdKHOR9UCELc3YEJP
X-Received: by 10.43.77.212 with SMTP id zj20mr25215770icb.5.1385579320578; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:08:40 -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 u1sm39790159ige.1.2013.11.27.11.08.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:08:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52964309.3060108@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:07:53 -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: <52935C89.5040408@ericsson.com> <CAGgHUiQnkQKkc-ptMu6DtfUYJY6N9i7PUaeAqKxp96nB2MQBGA@mail.gmail.com> <52936207.5040704@ericsson.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A13302B@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <5295B273.1060305@ericsson.com> <C5B67CF6-44C2-44ED-A087-67D9737870AD@gmail.com> <5295F718.9010603@ericsson.com> <20131127175414.GA87911@verdi> <49D33D9F-BC65-4AE8-B98A-04D3C170F644@phonefromhere.com> <CAD5OKxshm+izp7N_2+rst_hfSCAccddgT-u7KRvbxJz6t5m+0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxshm+izp7N_2+rst_hfSCAccddgT-u7KRvbxJz6t5m+0A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020906070008000903020905"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] The Voting Process
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:08:51 -0000

If you could come up with an alternative that works, great. The only 
reason we are voting is because all other options have failed.

It is my understanding that we have the following options (from best to 
worst):

 1. Come up with a better mechanism for establishing MTI, or
 2. Vote for MTI, or
 3. Give up and declare No MTI

Gili

On 27/11/2013 1:13 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>
> I am not sure about the rest of the group but from my point of view 
> the proposed process clearly shows that IETF in general and this group 
> in particular is not equipped to vote. I also strongly disagree that 
> voting would produce a MTI video codec decision which would meaningful 
> in any way. We need a way to find consensus regarding the MTI or drop 
> the whole MTI idea (which would also require consensus).
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb