Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 4940B1AE15B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:08:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 3qTgz8R2Oyei for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DFA1ADF50 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:08:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-122.lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id rAMM863o002170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:08:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id rAMM86SX001702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:08:06 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.203]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:08:06 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: AQHO5tnjQ/uRvvW18UuSyXVNQo17lJov6xSAgAACNwCAAAr+gIAABK+AgAAG6YCAAXMMwA==
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 22:08:05 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0EC014@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <CAHp8n2na+x3a-Ftnz4j4Zgzo_eviPqCw80Npq2bO4womDBF0CA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp8n2na+x3a-Ftnz4j4Zgzo_eviPqCw80Npq2bO4womDBF0CA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 22:08:22 -0000

Perhaps we should also add all those that have been active in ITU or ISO/IEC on the codec discussions.

Perhaps we should also add both my grandmothers - I claim they will have insight into this issue as they are both dead.

Seriously, I don't see how any ballot process will not be open to claims (either real or imagined) that the ballot was compromised in some way. I do not think this is the way to go.

Regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Silvia Pfeiffer
> Sent: 21 November 2013 19:38
> To: Adam Roach
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
> 
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
> > On 11/21/13 10:56, Justin Uberti wrote:
> >>
> >> Following an IETF meeting on Jabber doesn't count as participating?
> >>
> >> The "big guy vs little guy" narrative continues...
> >
> >
> > I think that's a bit specious. If someone is following the issue at 
> > such a distance that they haven't expressed an opinion on 
> the mailing 
> > list, I can't see how taking a vote from them counts as 
> anything other 
> > than simple, old-fashioned ballot stuffing.
> 
> They might have just been active on the W3C webrtc list and 
> watched here to see what is happening with codecs, but 
> haven't expressed their position.
> 
> 
> > I'll take it one step further. I find the prospect that 
> we're allowing 
> > blue sheets to stand in for participation to be highly 
> questionable: 
> > letting the tourists vote is weighting the opinion of demonstrably 
> > uninvolved (or
> > less-involved) parties at the same level as those who have actually 
> > been working on the topic. I do not think that a blue-sheet sign in 
> > without any on-list participation should be sufficient to 
> participate 
> > in the kind of process the chairs are proposing.
> 
> We could add that participation on the W3C webrtc list also qualifies.
> 
> 
> > Or perhaps I'm missing something. Is there something about the 
> > capabilities of "the little guy" that makes sending an email an 
> > unrealistically high barrier to entry?
> 
> To address the little guys even more, we could also add that 
> participation on the discuss-webrtc list also qualifies.
> 
> Just my 2c worth.
> 
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>