Re: [rtcweb] On the form of the question (was Re: Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs)

<> Fri, 08 November 2013 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0942321E80B6 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:34:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.537
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzcOtmYZug3h for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74C021E8099 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id rA8IPXA5026552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:25:34 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0136.001; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:25:33 +0000
From: <>
To: <>, <>, <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] On the form of the question (was Re: Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs)
Thread-Index: AQHO3JvVnrC6HW0kwUerUYvWzN0KqZobo5PA
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:25:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <20131108123109.GF3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-tituslabs-classifications-30: TLPropertyRoot=Nokia; Confidentiality=Nokia Internal Use Only; Project=None;
x-headerinfofordlp: None
x-tituslabs-classificationhash-30: VgNFIFU9Hx+/nZJb9Kg7ImIT0MuoH3bWel9UYmYeD2CO9QKMysB+NseUiCP4uOnwBs2OgfA0qNY4YN3qLHYaFtAzWt8WdAfZAMGX4pBUrMMfebaUuMjNKC5ieNCdClpAolGVQTgTts1goOg1ilE+FMn9qryh6mBAbv+Ab6KkQCkW2edkm8l1JCiceL3xNE760DBPknWgH9E5L+IOTgx+s5hNngzYY9EPsF2hpDbwfW2YrxBi+cQjMKXskXJNsF0JQ7EQNyo+gYskXfTvDjQXB7xmdc83r4TINFtCmnNE+VbEarSb0Yjd6tJPMWvNH61G
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] On the form of the question (was Re: Alternative consensus and MTI video codecs)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 18:34:59 -0000

Adam Roach wrote:
> Sadly, the form of the question, when combined with the method of
> measurement, precluded doing so.
> I'm not claiming that there was consensus in the room. I'm claiming that its
> presence would not have been detected by the methodology employed.
> Consider: if everyone in the room raised their hand for both options, Richard
> would have been compelled to call it "no consensus" even though that result
> would logically mean that no one objects to either option.

I agree that was the problem with how the questions were set. It was impossible to determine how many people were actually OK with either codec, and how many with just one of them. If we are to repeat the consensus call on the list, we will at least learn the distribution between "H.264 and VP8" vs. "Only H.264" vs. "Only VP8". I would suggest that if either of the "Only X" groups is relatively small, we could declare rough consensus. 
> Clearly, that didn't happen.
> On the other hand, what *did* happen was that we had roughly 50% of the
> room say that they were willing to live with H.264, and roughly 30% of the
> room say they were willing to live with VP8. 

Yes, so it would be useful to know what the proportion of those people raising their hands for just one vs. both options actually was.