Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

On 28/11/2013 10:34 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 8:52 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> 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.
>

The list we are preparing to vote on is an all-inclusive list. If you 
feel that a coin flip is a better option, you're going to need to 
compile an "all options being equal" list first.

If it's any consolation, I believe the fact that voting records will be 
open to the public (who voted and for what) will act to reduce gaming or 
at least enable us to detect it after-the-fact.

Which brings up the question: will the vote results be binding? Or will 
they act as a strong recommendation for a follow-up consensus call? :)

Gili