Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Daniel-Constantin Mierla <> Thu, 21 November 2013 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F831AE2ED for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:42:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id extbTO0C7c2n for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475A41AE1B5 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b57so121632eek.12 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:42:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/ore4nqiQbaQ3QfXebWaJFv8A+i9tvZVV9U2qA7JxWU=; b=zE78NLsIZXF54yoc0f6cxRh3w3elSjOJrrWRv+oBErpuNxZ1fcG/l4CR3IgDJqdpFw VPxaUYRQS9QAJnCqlppgADqfmKthza9dDdUtZ0m4XKqg89L7boFQNhjYayGcPx/7jIgn rbLktdVnc3ckCBZk3Bd1H0cf/ZIUjGC7rOXwfnPCrwjuHJY57aAhA3XUnOjScc2PlTH/ lXmvZgjL0N9PJJXwA3HZp7CXA/1aU9lCnUkWlF+w8YXzHCJtCd/gbZTbHClDqYWK4auN GuUy39jeacofwJrX0l7f02iDOrITCoejSoJElaE8bQElcd9ZL2BgyVB0LTNAcXPj19uw DCUQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n1mr11104253eex.15.1385066550049; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h8sm73620494eew.16.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:42:27 +0100
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/25.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "" <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:42:40 -0000

On 11/21/13 8:24 PM, David Singer wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 10:26 , Peter Saint-Andre <> wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On 11/21/13 9:51 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>> The method we propose is based on Instant-runoff voting,
>>>, with the
>>> understanding that the choice will be the winner according to the
>>> Instant-runoff voting process.
>> I have the greatest respect for the chairs, but this is an engraved
>> invitation for people to appeal whatever decision might be reached.
>> More fundamentally: Voting? At the IETF?? Really?!?
>> I sincerely hope we can figure out a better process…
> Me too.
> For example, the W3C uses a Call for Objections process, where the option with the weakest technical objection is selected.  I fear that voting will result in a decision that won’t be honored by a significant part of the population.  We don’t need just a mandate, we want the effect of an effective mandate.
Same opinion here.

IMO, it's very unlikely that only such voting will have proper 
effectiveness and, more important, fairness. No matter 
jabber/blue-sheets persons are allowed to vote or not, there was a lot 
of activity on the mailing lists only from lobbyists. That said, it is 
going to be a lot of influence from companies that bet on 'send many and 
speak loud'. But there were many entities that preferred to speak with a 
single and clear voice so far, not involving an army of email bots.

Just dismissing everyone (people/companies/projects) that simply relied 
on the usual 'consensus' policy, which doesn't require to step in front 
unless the decision is likely to be what one doesn't want, does not look 
fair at all. Many spent lot of time in actually doing work/implementing 
webrtc specs so far.

As highlighted before, the issue now is about selecting the voters. For 
example, I see no reason not to allow anyone that was subscribed to any 
webrtc mailing lists hosted by IETF and W3C - it is an indication of 
interest more that many people that go at IEFT for touristic reasons. 
Those that didn't actively participated in discussions so far on mailing 
lists, they should eventually prove their involvement in other related 
activities, with public references, such as:

- implemented webrtc releated specs in an application or product
- they participated to webrtc interop events
- they presented on webrtc topic at some conferences out there
- they wrote related IETF drafts

Probably the list can continue with other activities ... but is clear 
that the range of people interested in the topic is way larger. The 
process of deciding who can vote might create a bigger issue than 
deciding for vp8 or h264 (or other codec) with a flipping coin.


Daniel-Constantin Mierla -!/miconda -