Re: [rtcweb] Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 11/7/13 18:22, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I must have failed to make the point I was attempting to make
> sufficiently clear.  Let me retry: If we believe that an MTI video
> codec, regardless of what it is, was an independently important thing
> to have then "no MTI" shouldn't be the result of failing to achieve an
> MTI in discussion, because there exist_an option_, any option, to
> achieve a MTI video codec.  So I was hoping to see any support for "no
> MTI" (which sounded very popular in the room) to come with arguments
> for why an MTI doesn't actually matter.

Thanks for the clarification: I didn't get that out of your first 
message. For what it's worth, I agree with what you're saying here.

What I could make sense of was a suggestion that we turn to complete 
randomness for the decision at hand. And while that would actually make 
me happy[1], it struck me as patent nonsense from a process perspective.

> There are plenty of other arguments that can be made about the
> non-optimality of the 3929 panel process...

I tried really hard to make sure that any conversations about 3929 could 
begin playing out by giving what I think is a rather accessible 
description of that process back in Paris.

/a

___
[1] I just want an MTI [note: singular], and don't strongly care which 
one is selected. I *do* have a preference, but I don't think the 
arguments in favor of my preference are actually relevant to the IETF.