Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 20 December 2013 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 ADDC71A1F08 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 01:13:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 wGtflJTSBdTr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 01:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 972A41A1EF9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 01:13:06 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f1c8e000005ceb-20-52b40a1f83b5
Received: from ESESSHC016.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 54.5E.23787.F1A04B25; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:13:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.68) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:12:45 +0100
Message-ID: <52B40A1E.6030308@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:13:02 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, <rai-ads@tools.ietf.org>, <tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org>
References: <5283DF61.9060807@alvestrand.no> <52B31AF0.60107@ericsson.com> <52B32AE7.1080100@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <52B32AE7.1080100@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvra4815Ygg6OnTS1+f/rAZnGsr4vN Yu/2eYwWa/+1s1tMm/eR0YHV48qEK6wel3aeZPNYsuQnk8eXy5/ZAliiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0S uDLOf1jOVHBBsGL59c1MDYyT+boYOTkkBEwkVj3qY4OwxSQu3FsPZHNxCAkcYpS4fqSDBcJZ zijx8f1JVpAqXgFtiTO7vzOD2CwCqhIvd2wFi7MJWEjc/NEINklUIFji1rQH7BD1ghInZz5h AbFFBOYxSnSe5QCxhQWsJB7cOglWLySQJTF9zy6wGk4BHYn1F7cCzecAukhcoqcxCCTMLKAn MeVqCyOELS/RvHU2M0SrtkRDUwfrBEbBWUi2zULSMgtJywJG5lWM7LmJmTnp5YabGIFBfHDL b90djKfOiRxilOZgURLn/fDWOUhIID2xJDU7NbUgtSi+qDQntfgQIxMHp1QDY5nJmV08v0ML J8S+T29Knbh3g/QtxdQdP7ewFm0Xyj/2Jba48c80zrmvHl1oiuY83hK/ztPce94r9h+Np34b Lv7Qw8W38ujV9lPy3zlK6mu3is/tzXwaNGEXP5fYPxOl8FObtr6SmSb6iG+XXGCqwtP3jsmM ggdWNbx6+I5jg6uYtO9DV70pBkosxRmJhlrMRcWJAL/tpQYwAgAA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Protesting the QoS document decision
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: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:13:08 -0000

On 2013-12-19 18:20, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 8:12 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> This is clearly a failure by us chairs to ensure
>> sufficient transparency and a venue to timely protest that decision.
> 
> 
> A failure in transparency is actually the lesser offense, though lesser
> does not mean minor.
> 
> The deeper error is that the chairs felt they had authority to make a
> decision that really belonged to the working group.
> 
> This occurrence seems to be an exemplar of a pattern.

Dave,

I know we wrote decision in our response, and I would like to expand a
bit why. In this particular case the discussion between the TSV and RAI
ADs, the TSVWG and RTCWEB chairs as well as the draft-ietf-rtcweb-qos
authors resulted in an implicit decision. I stated that as being us
chairs taking a decision, that was due to our failure of properly anchor
this in the WG.

What in my mind should have occurred, but didn't in this case, would be
to do the following:

1. Send an email to the WG stating an intention to move the document.
Including the main motivations for the action. Provide a dead-line when
this will be done unless objections have been raised.

2. When the dead-line has been reached, assuming no objections document
it as the decided.

Do you think I as a chair is overstepping my authority if I follow the
above process in these cases where discussion is occurring in a smaller
group and some proposed direction is reached?

I note that in this particular case it could have been the ADs that
could have made the decision. However, as this wasn't communicated as an
AD decision, I will not attempt to hide my responsibility behind such a
line of argumentation.

Merry Christmas


Magnus Westerlund
(My view as an individual Chair)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------