Re: [rtcweb] Time allocation for video discussion (Re: Proposed Agenda For WG Meetings)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Harald,

Thanks for highlighting this. When I wrote this, I just basically took
the same time allocations from the Atlanta meeting and trimmed
them to fit.

That said, I do think there is merit in having a longer discussion
for a number of reasons:

1. I expect a number of the presentations to focus on quality,
and that's genuinely new information which hasn't been covered
before.

2. I'm of the school that on controversial issues it's important to
allow extensive discussion, so people have a sense of closure.
I realize others may disagree with this theory.

WRT to where it goes in the meeting, this seems like it's pretty
distracting, so I'd like to have it out of the way so people can
focus on the remaining complicated technical issues. If the
only reason is to keep it short, presumably the chairs can
manage that.

Best,
-Ekr

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
>
>> RTCWEB I: Tuesday 0900-1130
>> 0900 - 0905  Administrivia
>> 0905 - 1100  Video Codec MTI discussion
>>   - draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8-00 (30 mins)
>>   - draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-**proposal-00+draft-dbenham-**
>> webrtcvideomti-00+draft-**marjou-rtcweb-video-codec-00 (30 mins)
>>   - General discussion 30 min)
>>   - Call the question of which mandatory to implement video codec to
>> select (5 min)
>>   - Next steps (20 min)
>>
>>  I think this is an issue where all the people have most of the
> information required already, and new announcements that will make people
> change their minds are going to have to be fairly significant - and that if
> so, the amount of time required for pointing out that it's significant is
> short.
>
> Therefore, I propose that we cut each presentation to 10 minutes, the
> general discussion to 15 minutes, and spend 5 minutes on calling the
> question.
>
> Furthermore, I suggest we put this last on the last day's agenda.
>
> 40 minutes is enough, given that it's essentially yielding 1.5 bits of
> information.
> (1 bit = decision yes/no; if yes, what the decision was)
>