Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )

SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 28 November 2013 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 B2C161AE23F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:45:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 KdHUKDDPad9L for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:45:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2365E1AE17F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:45:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rASMiumL026104; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:44:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1385678703; bh=TAB4LQBym6VJ3/J6sS4tw4gHvrSFwLhALprYRu4AbK0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3rgnmHzqzgPFTB4sMTBP0O3eTSMwsiG8K0cb58zQCCwvYlrgaDyGHehso9Osx9J1N chQU3gCfjYqWhn53LzLoiLjIsKYRgEeWuM6dk3mywljIcwft+ZQ4YZMNoKNsx8fWw5 TDM/P0SedfEzJRMi3aAL0xiPsgsLAUGtNMETHcBo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1385678703; i=@resistor.net; bh=TAB4LQBym6VJ3/J6sS4tw4gHvrSFwLhALprYRu4AbK0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=pduEeEu1Q5kPfeeHhe0zSGjRgEZg18vV/5i4ljDgswghohqSVeQ62tIPwl4rwh40j mDsPnDqXU7KgrzGK9R61bbGUkCi0APneCzI0jZE0XBtjpA0jPSZcIVdQ6WsY+egYJe LuOKMjkvgI0yHWo+78vNyEINkbGkCY4um0+nzucM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131128133436.0b951538@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 14:05:48 -0800
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <5297AFA8.5000107@jitsi.org>
References: <CEBBC7E7.1F4ED%mzanaty@cisco.com> <529680EF.4010908@jitsi.org> <5296BA5E.20801@bbs.darktech.org> <5297AFA8.5000107@jitsi.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Why voting is not a viable process for the IETF (Was: Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives )
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:45:13 -0000

At 13:03 28-11-2013, Emil Ivov wrote:
>Exactly the kind of questions that the IETF does NOT handle.

In my humble opinion it does.

>It has to be clear in advance that voting is a possible outcome of 
>all discussions. It has to be clear who will be allowed to vote and, 
>just as importantly, who won't be. A good practice would be to then 
>contact potentially interested parties and inform them of the 
>process and voting conditions so that they can choose to get 
>involved and make sure they satisfy those conditions.

There are some details in the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html 
about the eligibility rules.  I think that I may be eligible but I am not sure.

>The rules that are currently being presented are EXPLICITLY 
>PREVENTING people from getting involved in the process and becoming 
>a part of the vote from now on. This is such a glaring deficiency 
>that I am amazed we are still discussing the option.

It is to prevent breaking the rules to gain unfair advantage. :-)

>The rules that have been presented basically sound like: "here are 
>the people that we think will produce the result we are looking for"

I have not looked into the details to take a guess about whether it 
is possible to predict the outcome.

Several decision-making alternatives have been put before this 
working group.  It seems that there has been difficulty getting 
people to agree on how to find a way to agree.  There isn't much an 
Area Director or a Working Group can do in those circumstances.

At 13:40 28-11-2013, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>So I fail to see how the outcome of this proposed vote could be 
>expected to convince someone who is concerned about legal/IPR issues 
>that their concerns have been addressed.  Is legal counsel expected 
>to view the outcome and say "I had concerns relating to the 
>IPR/licensing risks of <insert codec here> but now that the IETF 
>RTCWEB WG has concluded its voting process, I realize that my 
>concerns were merely the invention of an over-active legal mind!"

I would not conclude that there isn't any IPR issue based on the 
conclusion of the decision process.  I am not keen about voting as it 
can be a problem in future.

>[BA] I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED that such a thing could be going on here!
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

This is a moment of humor at in that video. :-)

At 14:06 28-11-2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>Standards are created such that system are able to interoperate with
>each other. Deciding to avoid the decision for an MTI and thus
>creating non-interoperable rtcweb systems is giving up on
>standardising interoperability. IMO that is very much a technical
>question.

Yes.

Regards,
-sm