Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Big caveat as I post this: I am speaking strictly as an IETF 
participant. In particular:

- I am not speaking as an AD. I am not the responsible AD for this WG, 
and the chairs can go ahead with their proposed path forward consulting 
with the WG's responsible AD, whatever they think of what I say below. 
No implication of any authority should be taken here.

- Though my comments here are clearly informed by the draft some of you 
know that I'm working on regarding consensus, that draft does not 
represent accepted theory in the IETF, so I'm not appealing to it as 
some sort of "given truth" on this.

I'm just another participant in the room.

All that said, I am concerned about the path being proposed, and I agree 
with Matthew's concern (though I feel somewhat less defeatist than his 
assessment sounds):

On 9/13/13 11:59 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> 2. Should I expect "room-packing" for this "show of hands" (which I 
> don't believe is the typical "hum" process for the IETF, either) as 
> happened during the SDES discussion last time, and therefore need to 
> bring as many people who've not participated in RTCWEB previously but 
> who want my codec to succeed as I can afford to fly to Vancouver?

I think this is a valid concern. Asking "who wants or can live with 
VP8?" and "who wants or can live with H.264?" might be a good start to 
the discussion, but at that point, I'm going to want to hear *why* 
people *can't* live with one or the other. What I would *not* be 
interested in is yet another presentation from the proponents of either 
of these to tell me why one is better; I want to hear from *opponents* 
of the proposal to hear why the proposal would fail. Only then would I 
want to hear from proponents responding to those objections. And then 
I'd like to see a summary of those objections and those responses by the 
chairs. With that summary, the chairs can make a call of whether there 
is any hope of consensus. I think much of that work can and should take 
place on the mailing list *before* the face-to-face meeting.

But asking for a show of hands in the room for people who "can live 
with" one or the other and deciding whether or not consensus exists 
based on that show of hands is simply taking a vote, it's not judging 
consensus. You cannot know from that result whether the reason that some 
people could not "live with" a proposal was simply because "my Aunt 
Gertrude told me that I should say that I can't live with it." To ask 
for the show of hands and then not find out what it means is not calling 
the consensus. And I think moving to a 3929 alternative on the basis of 
that show of hands would be improper.

Put me down as one voice who objects to the proposed procedure.

pr

> On 9/13/2013 9:52 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> WG,
>>
>> The chairs have created a plan for how to perform the Video Codec
>> selection in our WG. The chairs are asking for review of our plan on
>> how to undertake the mandatory-to-implement video codec selection.
>> We'd much prefer to have comments on the mechanics before they begin,
>> so please review now.  Proponents of a particular proposal should
>> note both the actions required and the timelines proposed.
>>
>> The main goal of this plan is to hold a consensus call on which of
>> the proposed alternatives we as a WG should select at one of the WG
>> sessions in Vancouver. Such a consensus call will of course be
>> verified on the mailing list for anyone who can't participate. The
>> chairs will recuse themselves from judging this particular
>> consensus.
>>
>> In the WG session each codec proposal will be allowed an equal amount
>> of time to highlight the arguments for their proposal. After that a
>> there will be a slot for discussion and clarifying questions.
>>
>> To enable the WG participants to get answers to any questions, the
>> proposals in draft form and any supporting material MUST be made
>> available by 6th of October. This is to ensure that the WG
>> participants can verify or object to any claims or statements in
>> the proposal material prior to the WG session. We chairs would really
>> not like to see the proponents bring up new arguments at their
>> presentation. Also the WG participants are expected to raise any
>> arguments on the list ahead of time to enable the proponents to
>> respond to such arguments.
>>
>> The proposed consensus questions will be of the following form:
>>
>> 1. If you support H.264 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>
>> 2. If you support VP8 as the mandatory to implement codec or are
>> willing to live with it as the MTI, please raise your hand now.
>>
>> You may indicate support on both questions and we encourage you to do
>> so if you can live with either, even if you have a preference for one
>> over the other.
>>
>> Additional proposals than the previous ones are welcome, but must be
>> submitted as draft and their proponents must notify the chairs no later
>> than the 6th of October that they also have a candidate proposal.
>>
>> In case the WG fails to reach consensus we chairs propose that we use
>> the alternative decision process as discussed in RFC3929. The method
>> and its usage will be discussed on the list should the WG not
>> establish consensus on a proposal for mandatory to implement video codec.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Magnus,  Cullen, and Ted

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]