Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video Selection Process)
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 19:20 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 683A11AE247 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:20:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 0v6_En-UFU1G for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703671AE05C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id k14so195155wgh.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:52 -0800 (PST)
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=VaYkkfz47rsmoZno9HVOsCuIKtRb+wsBjmxAuch8GpQ=; b=UO0A67otL1mkXjdNHf8HF/2ev0JQi87CMw/7UI2o1Y5xPHUmcYL2cXyuqo9ikknutE f11iXrjz64AHStxbK5WN3n7a9VnN0ddNKUQn4SNmeU9IQb9ZQrJjEVRGQK1mX+ds4AmH Ly4KwDiy4o3MhAvYQ323CZ4dk2DsVK+o12YbxdXLwQZQXRnrebMfmZ5WQp2ERt0Bkad6 74WOALS2oU/epaHDGdh5pSD+b5g+dKjw7h7j04Vmn7IZuQX8Oyyjlvr3XWtB5zcAN4PB oum4o7J9REx0rQpX41+Vz6JWZvv0YLvDw13J/HnkGWTroUU/DptHCVtNuO3tuRWvhGnp NtbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkPHsEeBL3p4CaRwAyPg4jt8tHFtgxIr0DdEqJwVHRM2zX4nVrDO7g9QLAE/2Hk2tqPGaCn
X-Received: by 10.180.221.38 with SMTP id qb6mr7156472wic.8.1385061592185; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.152.137 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [63.245.220.224]
In-Reply-To: <528E5AF7.5080403@alvestrand.no>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <528E5AF7.5080403@alvestrand.no>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNuxnXoLO+oWdWTfcnkM-577MBDP5WYmhQTuoBdGKwqLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134d2da320f2c04ebb4c8d4"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: 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 19:20:03 -0000
In order to forestall the inevitable voting nerd thread, allow me to point to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_theorem -Ekr On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote: > Forking this thread, and leaving aside all consideration of whether the > IETF should do voting, whether the electorate is the right electorate for > the decision and so on: > > I wonder if Instant Runoff is the right choice for this situation. > Instant Runoff means that when you don't get a majority for anything, you > drop the lowest-ranked candidate and distribute the ballots that had this > as their #1 across the other candidates. > > This has the property that in a polarized situation, compromises may get > dropped out of the running before the alternatives that they might serve as > a compromise between. > > In this case, I'd favour a Condorcet-compatible method, such as Schulze; > it provides the guarantee that if a choice is preferred by a majority of > the participants over every other choice, it will always be chosen. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Schulze_method > > > On 11/21/2013 05:51 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > >> WG, >> >> The WebRTC ecosystem needs to avoid interoperability failure to grow >> optimally. The RTCWEB working group took on the task of establish Audio >> and Video MTI codecs as part of meeting that need. We have not succeeded >> in finishing that task for video using normal IETF process, but it is >> still important. >> >> We (WG chairs) are proposing that the working group consent to a method >> that will establish an MTI, even if the MTI chosen does not have rough >> consensus. We would far prefer the normal IETF process, but it is not >> proving workable for this selection. >> >> We initially proposed a method from RFC 3929 (external review team), but >> now believe that the working group would not consent to that method. >> Instead we are proposing a method that leaves the decision in the hands >> of the WG. >> google.com >> The method we propose is based on Instant-runoff voting, >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting, with the >> understanding that the choice will be the winner according to the >> Instant-runoff voting process. >> >> The steps in the proposed process are these (1-5): >> >> 1) Establish a final list of alternatives, based on the WG's input to >> Gonzalo's email on the 13th of November that requires any additions to >> provided by end of the 27th of November. >> >> 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. >> >> 3) Start the the voting period. Those eligible and willing to vote send >> their ballot to a vote collector (Matt Lepinski, former Nomcom chair) >> within two weeks using email. The vote collector will check when >> receiving a ballot the that the voter is eligible and send a >> confirmation email on receiving the ballot. During the balloting period >> the vote collector will keep all ballots secret. >> >> Balloting: >> - The voter MUST rank ALL alternatives in their ballot from the most >> preferred, marked with rank 1, the second most with 2, all the way >> to the least preferred marked with rank N. >> >> >> 4) When the voting period is over the ballot collector will publish the >> results as well as all ballots, including the voters name to the RTCWEB >> WG mailing list. This enables all voting individuals to verify that >> their ballot is unmodified. And allows anyone to verify the result of >> the vote. >> >> 5) The selection is recorded in the drafts. >> >> >> --- End of Process Proposal --- >> >> This message initiates the first step in the working group consensus >> call process. Namely a one week comment and discussion period for the >> above process. >> >> After that week the WG chairs will update, if necessary, the proposal. >> Then using the normal IETF process in which anyone is eligible to >> participate, the chairs will ask for (rough) consensus to adopt this >> extraordinary process to achieve the working group's stated goals. The >> end date for this consensus call is 2-weeks after the announcement of >> the consensus call. >> >> If the working group does not consent to using this extraordinary >> process, we will hold a consensus call if the WG can accept >> "WebRTC entities MUST support at least one of H.264 or VP8.". >> >> If there is failure to establish consensus even for this statement, the >> chairs conclude that the WG can't establish what to say about a MTI >> video codec. >> >> The WG Chairs >> >> Magnus Westerlund >> Cullen Jennings >> Ted Hardie >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >> > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Philipp Hancke
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jack Moffitt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ashish V. Thapliyal
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process bryandonnovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Paul Giralt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec … Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Marc Abrams
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video co… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)