Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 28 November 2013 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C561ADBC9; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:34:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jvxZA9BgkwSo; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:34:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6EF1AE034; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:34:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:34:55 PST
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2259E1B82E5; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:34:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14FD2190043; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:34:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 07:34:53 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:34:48 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Originating-IP: []
Cc:, Dave Cridland <>,, Eric Burger <>, IETF Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
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, 28 Nov 2013 15:34:57 -0000

On Nov 28, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Eliot Lear <> wrote:
> While I appreciate the difficult position the chairs are in, I don't
> agree with the approach and I believe it is inappropriate for the
> working group to make such a decision.  Working groups don't vote.  Want
> to change that process?  Better gain IETF consensus first.  And I will
> argue against any such attempt.  There are plenty of other standards
> bodies that do vote.  Go to one of them if that's what you want.

One of the things to talk about here is the issue of voting versus a coin toss.   The advantage of a coin toss is that nobody can say it was gamed, because it's random—there is no process to blame if it doesn't go your way.   Voting, however, is somewhat predictable, and can be gamed.

So the concern is that if the working group has consensus to vote, it's probably because interested parties have some reason to believe the vote will go their way.   They may be horribly mistaken, or they may be correct—that isn't the point.   The point is that they aren't actually okay with the outcome not going their way.

So if the working group is willing to agree to a vote, and unwilling to agree to a coin toss, that says something _very important_ about the status of consensus in the working group.