Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net> Thu, 21 November 2013 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
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 3B9B31AE03D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:24:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 gcrPaY4EIR64 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:24:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333D61AE1DB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:24:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id tp5so215887ieb.25 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:24:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crocodilertc.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VqX8dak/iWTNXxDqHKqsWpgvn0669HGr298xEuzFz6c=; b=b9zkkTWKocPqwq4DkAczZZIXI7AiyFfhjWiTBj9QZ6tGaHvnyfeWLm8B3Jau+33q5I qFCmtZ8QD9ka13jzpvo5AFzzCMTTig9k38+BzACWtoOP2UBjBJ/wptxZC81vjWMOneVZ CDPc/5VsgCMAZBurDnMPedamwHz5ocCPe1Aww=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VqX8dak/iWTNXxDqHKqsWpgvn0669HGr298xEuzFz6c=; b=Q3IuMn/pYpDzMkxmDveng/N8CACeJjjZGGolqrS+8X5EC3DiiEQVrFrIOtZZqlHk71 qaGhYRqpCtNBWhTPsDANGvV7tdanP1s5V1UlygdymYBXtVPN0pLAeQwmDlCeVt1DlEXl 5F7dNU3Um7pXeD7jLzkpoQyqdp1Lx+ptBZ/XhdqYfGsxy2IG6MBGHo32u+PqLAy2SRQ4 bO0gDBGnvfMTxHmbkoCygM0T4X6c32rRL7jQErcDlOg4OKMZTGknkGEUeWdiVi5LJbr/ UfIyPo9noIjzNFlO33iirwWVC8rKCsmsj1911aqp9JSDT90lCJCFBi9sJ96aFhiI61qJ oUyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/r0Te+K51r3XjIf07FmyRnovhS88L+1OQuDyFnejKL/u9AjNQW1DBrzMBZn+a7LzXQUdv
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.1.78 with SMTP id 14mr28573495igk.37.1385058260389; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:24:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.229.13 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:24:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:24:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEqTk6TcYft9BUbFFjxpLbgUo+FbLzteBmJjKV5DjP_=uFVJpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
To: "Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <jlaurens@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc119a9aa6a804ebb40116
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection 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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:24:29 -0000

This is a topic that is important to me (and the company I work for) that I
have been following closely, but each time I see an issue on the list I
would like to comment on it someone has already said what I would say.

There will have been many people in the room at the meetings (and
presumably on the blue sheets) who have never posted on this list and these
people get a vote.  The only difference between them and me will be that
they work for a company that has the budget (both in terms of money and
time) to send them there.

If you allow those who have been in the room and not posted to vote, but
those of us who were only able to participate online cannot vote, you are
in effect giving preference to organisations and individuals with bigger
budgets.  That would hardly seem fair.

Regards,

Peter


On 21 November 2013 10:17, Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
<jlaurens@cisco.com>wrote:

> If they participated in the mailing list they would be included. I can't
> imagine that simply logging into a chat room in order to vote qualifies you.
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>;
> wrote:
>
>
> On 21 November 2013 08:51, Magnus Westerlund <
> magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>; wrote:
>
> 2) Establish those eligible to vote.  Any participant in the
>> working group process either electronically or in-person as of yesterday
>> (20th of November). Who has participated in the Working group process
>> will be anyone that can be identified from:
>>  - The Blue Sheets for any RTCWEB WG session during an IETF meeting or
>>    an interim meeting since the WG's creation.
>>  - posting of at least one email to the RTCWEB mailing list
>>
>> The voter must at time of voting prove their eligibility, by pointing to
>> the mail archive or a particular blue sheet/meeting. Please verify your
>> own eligibility.
>>
>>
>>
> What about those who are not on the blue sheets because we participated
> (and at the last meeting voted/hummed on this issue) through Jabber?
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>  _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>


-- 
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd