Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Matt Fredrickson <creslin@digium.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <creslin@digium.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 A18311AE289 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:18:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 aJDg7YWMOAC8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com (mail-la0-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F421AE1A6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ec20so212810lab.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:18:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NRMf4CZ25WlnoVzJ1/qexf4YK+xcdd+0r1xyh7+X9xQ=; b=ByExHCtT/09DmOGJT3ZDIkFVFJFORfp56f9QniGyOBBOMm1CQg5tSXx6nezN1Gc2n/ +kMZ3zFcngPApmvjZFOJvV7qvYBdDSHbyBFzU7bUu+Bc+nLLgSod7WFsjZBCsJxGNP2a dBsVrBKI12XoTtT/RgYyFGDC/QdnMNlhG/YhQPxptQbdjPNOd/oanCED7ktwtYWOjblq G9eyxTpmC4mh55SPSLeyMywPlh0i290O3bWk6jTxUjoEAocfL7jAI6Y+I8DU6xu94qjn gI+IiI0oBuh6t8VXtUyJlhuTnr3CwdPqMSOi6EKBGBqf6ejLk9Qm9crO3xl1CpCAKjQj 2iHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/Alx6wb33sc/q7NL6zjSCscA3T2ZcBtR8FntQcPBRv0lrtF1fPRae/iw9U64mwMUaKm/d
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.162.136 with SMTP id ya8mr2333161lbb.43.1385065108575; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.132.102 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:18:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAEqTk6RMnxshnCwG-48A=GHM0hh_Msw9u6z2RsWfUN_XYdqePg@mail.gmail.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> <CAEqTk6RMnxshnCwG-48A=GHM0hh_Msw9u6z2RsWfUN_XYdqePg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:18:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHZ_z=y94dty+K_72pJT0ieeZWtchFS_Y93WUW=BTCeEKMSNdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Fredrickson <creslin@digium.com>
To: Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 20:18:40 -0000

I agree.  I too attempt to participate remotely and would not like to
be excluded from any decision making vote on this process.

Matthew Fredrickson

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Peter Dunkley
<peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>; wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am sure there are many people on the blue sheets who have never
> participated on any of the mailing lists.  My point is that to be fair (and
> as this is controversial it must be fair) if they get a vote because they
> showed up in person those of us who showed up online should get a vote too.
>
> I am based in the UK, so the late in the day meetings at Vancouver were at
> incredibly anti-social times for me.  Still, it was important and I made the
> effort to stay up and participate in the only way I could.
>
> There is also a consistency issue here.  Those of us on Jabber were able to
> (and encouraged to) participate in the consensus process, but it has been
> proposed that we be excluded from the vote.  Really, you should either be
> able to participate through Jabber or not in a consistent way.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On 21 November 2013 11:37, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Dunkley
> Technical Director
> Crocodile RCS Ltd
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>