Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Wed, 27 November 2013 22:06 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 9A6821AE04F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:06:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 o7wu4b6J_bPG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (mail-ie0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC62B1AE066 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id x13so12670444ief.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:05:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0nzGT2GzMqbkHTgpyMq36asHAM0BcIkThnLKfyjB/bM=; b=l+gT1Ubjv1mHNoxX8Up9WpuhfiGmQ/5npX+8DLoHK5u0UhM8bjWoN+Hq6OhRAcRwdC /DnhwyVVSaSdiCstAJxdxzeHyj4wi3TNTOBU3cdjr3oeJj50e26kffsfTewpJs6DGs1j kTFlVA5D+YsQlQye9/T874ug3IHHg8gxrGXIBhdjFMyMvl4JbhePMvpKkgHkICi41v+K AUewSQSDVc4d6n8qpRXYB/3ma/2EuKHS0tT9orqWMnQ5vEgcIyLhUyCnxGZNAiisBhJB JRlAwmAqqfKsFnmyQPUxoFYXrC5Kz3gYjX5+yRdfFv+dqaFlpi7CX1HA6Z/FiRQnGJko u1Lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkorlBTcScw2MmMVtbslY+yXvZd6OiFw9eqTpgeNl8qbaYnabTZGNYXoqUfU6sOeLdYgLLx
X-Received: by 10.42.149.130 with SMTP id w2mr9569icv.64.1385589958146; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id da14sm1101319igc.1.2013.11.27.14.05.56 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:05:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52966C97.5020102@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:05:11 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CEBBC7E7.1F4ED%mzanaty@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEBBC7E7.1F4ED%mzanaty@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Last day for any additional Video Codec Selection alternatives
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:06:00 -0000

Sounds to me like an issue that should be "voted on" before the actual vote.

If voting proceeds, I am in favor of disqualifying any ballot that omits 
a ranking for a voting option. The entire point of this process is to 
look for a compromise, not to let people vote for their favorite option 
and nothing else. It is highly unlikely that anyone's 1st choice will 
end up winning.

Gili

On 27/11/2013 4:42 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> Several folks have objected to a vote. Is it worthwhile to have an
> alternative that expresses this?
>
> ³Voting MUST NOT be used to decide MTI video codec(s).²
>
> I realize it is whacky to ask someone to vote to express an objection to
> voting. But otherwise, how will the chairs/ADs be able to reconcile the
> objections with the vote results? I¹ve only seen a handful of voting
> objections, and only several dozen total voices expressing various
> opinions, while the rooms seemed packed with hundreds and the list has
> over a thousand subs. I have no idea where rough consensus lies in the
> larger community, nor how significant voting objections may be in that
> larger community. But that seems like useful, perhaps essential,
> information to know how to interpret the results. For example, if 40%
> objected to voting (as a first choice), that would immediately send a red
> flag no matter what result was ultimately selected via instant runoff.
> Conversely, if only 1% objected to voting, that may be less of a concern.
> Of course, a small minority of objectors may argue that is the essence of
> their objection to voting in the first place.
>
> I also support the option of not ranking any equally undesired
> alternatives. Especially for those who choose only the alternative above.
>
> Mo
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb