Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <> Wed, 27 November 2013 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA951AE00E for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:42:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EqG_1w9RdACH for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:42:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D521ADF71 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:42:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1298; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385588567; x=1386798167; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=3dd5b7E5TVBqPK2NFCL2W0UgM+76JSG0GsDhzmqtKk0=; b=HAStrfS4vfxPlogDoScd9tajx36bklFj6+l+lWwXWSO6IjCxhrI3U4Qy CDqsyPC7ufjbVGOXiVYH1o/V5hiN7qpvTBYAkBcGMWpWqNMzC6dovB1Xc Qpp/Avwka1Xjq29gMGPAArlDB0Exb+Vf+HZgfvwFTkbCtzjVmA0ZXa9b2 Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiIFAElmllKtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABZgweBC7lkFnSCLIELAQh4JwQBJodtwAYXkzwDiQqPCpITgymCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,785,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="287958602"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2013 21:42:46 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rARLgkxW006407 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:42:46 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:42:46 -0600
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives
Thread-Index: AQHO67mcb3GqaKqJ/kqpXKe0fhw5BA==
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:42:45 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:42:48 -0000

Several folks have objected to a vote. Is it worthwhile to have an
alternative that expresses this?

³Voting MUST NOT be used to decide MTI video codec(s).²

I realize it is whacky to ask someone to vote to express an objection to
voting. But otherwise, how will the chairs/ADs be able to reconcile the
objections with the vote results? I¹ve only seen a handful of voting
objections, and only several dozen total voices expressing various
opinions, while the rooms seemed packed with hundreds and the list has
over a thousand subs. I have no idea where rough consensus lies in the
larger community, nor how significant voting objections may be in that
larger community. But that seems like useful, perhaps essential,
information to know how to interpret the results. For example, if 40%
objected to voting (as a first choice), that would immediately send a red
flag no matter what result was ultimately selected via instant runoff.
Conversely, if only 1% objected to voting, that may be less of a concern.
Of course, a small minority of objectors may argue that is the essence of
their objection to voting in the first place.

I also support the option of not ranking any equally undesired
alternatives. Especially for those who choose only the alternative above.