Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Sat, 20 October 2012 14:16 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20121020134833.GE44606@verdi>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:15:50 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <28739B70-EC86-4C86-87BD-64A3F8C9D060@iii.ca>
References: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB111891794@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <BLU002-W62D02E8AAD031475EEE21A93740@phx.gbl> <20121020134833.GE44606@verdi>
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity
Precedence: list

On Oct 20, 2012, at 7:48 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:

> Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> Do we really  have to allocate 20 minutes to *each* draft?...
> 
>   +1

The agenda is draft and I'm sure I and the other chairs will take the feedback we get into account as we refine this closer to the meeting. The MTI video codec is a pretty big questions we are asking and my observation about getting consensus is that people need to have been given the time to make their key argument or it is very hard to get to consensus. I realize that some people believe, or even hope, that we will not get to consensus on this topic so it is all a waste of time but the WG has made it clear it does want to get to have a MTI video codec. 

So consider the situation we are in. One of the drafts says when making measurements on quality they found A was better than B while the another draft says B was better than A. Several people have asked me how this could happen two different groups ended up with opposite measurements and they want to understand more about how this could have happened and which is correct. 

Let me ask you guys a question, how many people do you think will be in the microphone line up when theses two are discussed? You have both seen plenty of controversial topics discussed at other ietf meetings. What would you recommend to people making slides for a slot like this - how many slides do you think they can reasonably get through in a time slot like this? What would your best guess be of how long we need to make these slots such that the chairs don't have to cut off the mic lineup? 

I know you could take these as vaguely cynical rhetorical questions but I don't mean them that way. I'm straight up asking you how much time you think we need such that authors of the drafts can make their key argument and people that have questions or disagreements that they think are important for the WG to understand can make ask their question.

Cullen <with my co-chair hat on>

Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity John Leslie
[rtcweb] Draft agenda for RTCWeb session 2 at IET… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
[rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity Bernard Aboba
Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity Cullen Jennings
Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity Bernard Aboba
Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB Session 2: A plea for brevity John Leslie