Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection: Dropping options

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 29 November 2013 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 D37131ADFF3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:00:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 GTY3wwbm6UfZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:213:72ff:fe0b:80d8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5551ADF5B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC9039E209; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:00:32 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gd9OZLyT0psu; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:00:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.17] (unknown [188.113.88.47]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 883E039E132; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:00:31 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52988217.3030101@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:01:27 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C1346A1@gbplmail03.genband.com> <52978488.4010108@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBNz6dYtgK84RkTz9L0vFp5oafBxC8Uc5CDZbXvSexVp-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNz6dYtgK84RkTz9L0vFp5oafBxC8Uc5CDZbXvSexVp-g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection: Dropping options
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, 29 Nov 2013 12:00:35 -0000

On 11/28/2013 07:05 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2013 11:40 AM, Jeremy Fuller wrote:
>>> Since we appear to be entering the realm of voting game theory, +1 to dropping options where consensus has previously proven to be unobtainable. These options have had their moment, time to focus on something else.
>> The WG has never voted on these alternatives; what failed was an attempt
>> at finding consensus.
>>
>> Furhtermore, the choice of voting method that the chairs are still
>> advocating (IRV) is one where presence of non-selected alternatives on
>> the slate can influence the outcome.
> Without taking a position on which system we should use, I would note
> that this is also true of Condorcet.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Evaluation_by_criteria

I think this is only true for candidates that form part of a Condorcet 
cycle.
If we get a real live Condorcet cycle, I for one am willing to live with 
any of the cycle members just because Condorcet cycles are cool :-)