Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video Selection Process)

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Mon, 25 November 2013 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
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 EFF6B1AD8F4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:23:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 No-aP4ZpHcSG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:23:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us3.mailhostbox.com [70.87.28.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C511AD8D5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:23:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.166.141.171]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8B7AC14D8BBB; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:23:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1385403799; bh=AMAP7Ec0j/W1EFK2RDUNZdmUT/DjIELu1l07KwUxSoc=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kQLXFfEVemi7J/awHmFq1bLwE46cOGCM341saUXc3w2AuUiuyrGvK2Lg9FiGVb72N tm4pSiv7tMIMXFuuY9FaP14qohanw6PtK6vUVGfWN/ZvhTsoqtcssiqvyysAsIxksZ g445exBi7Tec5sQGVD0kDGbN8BuyMHnrNHfrKW2E=
From: "Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?'Herv=E9'?= <h_o_w_@hotmail.com>, "'Harald Alvestrand'" <harald@alvestrand.no>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <528E5AF7.5080403@alvestrand.no>, <52922ED3.7070908@alvestrand.no>, <002d01cee949$51a4c3c0$f4ee4b40$@co.in> <DUB127-W90308439B7901571CF198E0E20@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <DUB127-W90308439B7901571CF198E0E20@phx.gbl>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:53:11 +0530
Message-ID: <004d01ceea0b$6951a020$3bf4e060$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac7paDqj3wJNFCkBQG+jjg0MhBjAfQAoaxeA
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A02020A.52939597.006B, ss=1, re=0.100, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.100
X-CTCH-Rules: SUBJECT_NEEDS_ENCODING,
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.157
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video Selection Process)
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: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:23:22 -0000

Please read inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hervé [mailto:h_o_w_@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 4:25 AM
> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Harald Alvestrand'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video
> Selection Process)
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> > From: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
> 
> > IMO, The fundamental problem with these methods (Condorcet & IRV) is
> that
> > they are designed to find the winner out of the discrete candidates
> (A, B,
> > C) in mind whereas the candidates in this voting is of combination of
> > discrete and set nature (A, B, (A & B), (A | B)). I like to see the
> proof
> > whether the above methods (Condorcet & IRV) are really designed to
> bring the
> > correct winner in these set of candidates as well.
> >
> > I can show how your example of Condorcet fail with (A|B) is as
> follows: The
> > candidates are A,B, (A|B)
> >
> > A: Codec A
> > B: Codec B
> > A|B: At least one of Codec A and B
> >
> > If the distribution is like this:
> >
> > A proponents (40%): A A|B
> > B proponents (40%): B A|B
> > Compromisers group 1 (5%): A|B A
> > Compromisers group 2 (15%): A|B B
> >
> > Then under IRV, the first round will go 40/40/20, alternative A|B
> will be
> > eliminated, and B will be chosen with 55 as A has 45 only in the
> second
> > round.
> >
> > Under Condorcet, the outcomes will be:
> >
> > - A outranks B on 55%
> > - B outranks A on 45%
> 
> I think your commentary below agrees that you swapped the numbers
> there.
> 
> 
> > - A|B outranks A on 60%
> > - A|B outranks B on 60%
> >
> > Therefore, A|B is a Condorcet winner and election is successful. In
> reality,
> > the original winner is B and compromisers group 2 which is interested
> only
> > in implementing B which has 55% supporter. Also, A and Compromisers
> group 1
> > is interested only in implementing A which is 45%. So, Condorcet
> winner is
> > not required to be correct in case A|B, A&B candidates exists in the
> > election.
> 
> What would you say is the correct winner?
> 
<Partha> In the given example, B is actual winner as it will results in 55%
implementation. As I explained in Harald mail thread, it is not coming out
by Condorcet mechanism. </Partha>

> One that avoids negotiation failure completely? A|B does not do that.
> (But might reduce the chance a little compared to no MTI.)
> 
<Partha> Agreed </Partha>

> One that the most people find acceptable? A|B is that.
<Partha> If your statement is true, there should be rough consensus for A|B
before taking voting (alternative) process. Currently, the proposed video
selection process is going for vote and then asking for regular rough
consensus mechanism for A|B if vote (alternative) fail </Partha>

> The voters in the condorcet hypothetical all get their wish and can
> comply with rtcweb without implementing the codec they do not want.
> 
> 
> From the examples I've seen, I think condorcet would be preferable to
> IRV.
> 
> There is the argument 'The IETF does not vote' to contend with. I don't
> know about that. I think VP8 as the only MTI or H.264 as the only MTI
> is unlikely to find consensus, but I also agree that the "or could live
> with" crowd might have been masked during the meeting.
<Partha> It should come out through the rough consensus </Partha>

> I think it's good to look into some alternative proposals and would be
> good to see which are least objectionable. And a vote could be just the
> tool to do that.
> Is consensus not an acceptable resolution, if not the favourite? and
> condorcet seems like a method to find it.
> 
> Another tool, a list of pros and cons,
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/RSbHIuSOgn .
>
<Partha> Good information. I agree with the information which exists as of
now </Partha>
 
> 
> > Having said that, I agree with you that IVR is also not required to
> yield
> > correct election result in case A&B, A|B candidates exists.
> >
> > As of now as I mentioned in
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10113.html,
> the
> > election result may leads to the situation of "the operation was a
> success
> > but the patient died". Please let me know your opinion on the same.
> 
> 
> - Hervé 		 	   		  =