Re: [rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Hi Richard,

comments inline.

On 16/12/14 23:25, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Hey Daniel,
>
> I think Sean's original message was pretty clear about this:
> """
> After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and
> typing the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in
> the room to add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In keeping with IETF process, I am
> confirming this consensus call on the list.
> """
>

Maybe the sequence of the events combined with rather sophisticated
presentation (of what might have been expected as a simple, direct call
to vote yes or no) has compromised the intended goal of the message for
some people (or maybe only for me).

I got it as being the presentation of what happened on site in Honolulu
for the video MTI codec session, with the confirmation of chairs that
there was a consensus call in the room for that specific proposal,
resulting in a rough consensus, in the spirit that what happens on site
is summarized 'officially' on mailing list. At the same time being a
very active discussion on 'shoving' the proposed text, I thought that it
needs to be done first (rise issues about & discuss up to Dec 19) and
afterwards an explicit call on consensus with 'shoved' text.

> Nonetheless, if you think people have missed this point, feel free to
> prompt them to comment in that thread.

OK.

Thanks,
Daniel

>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> <miconda@gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Richard,
>
>     thanks for the clarification! IMO, the initial message content was
>     not stating explicitly this is the goal and apparently it misled
>     the expectation from some of us.
>
>     Maybe it would be appropriate to have a fresh message sent by WG
>     chairs/AD (or other IETF 'official' involved in the process) to
>     say it explicitly by subject, just in case someone (else than me)
>     didn't understand (from current discussions) that there is an
>     ongoing call on consensus for video MTI codec. There are still
>     three days left that can prevent negative reactions later.
>
>     Daniel
>
>
>     On 16/12/14 21:03, Richard Barnes wrote:
>>     <hat type="AD" subtype="process-steward"/>
>>
>>     Hi Daniel,
>>
>>     Thanks for the question.  The goal of Sean's message is indeed to
>>     seek consensus on the codec question.  The time for discussion is
>>     to allow for any other issues to be raised, beyond those that
>>     were raised in the room in Honolulu.  At the end of the comment
>>     period on Friday, Sean will review the discussion and make a
>>     determination as to whether a rough consensus has been reached.
>>
>>     --Richard
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>     <miconda@gmail.com <mailto:miconda@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         With many forks of the thread and various opinions, can
>>         anyone clarify
>>         the expectation of these discussions. Ideally will be the WG
>>         chairs
>>         stating what is the role of the current discussions,
>>         specially to the
>>         initial thread with the subject 'confirming sense of the
>>         room: mti
>>         codec' started by Sean Turner - link to archive:
>>
>>            -
>>         http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html
>>
>>         My understanding was that it is about clarifying what
>>         happened during
>>         the sessions in Honolulu, not a call on consensus for the
>>         proposal. I
>>         get the feeling that many understood it differently, being
>>         the call on
>>         consensus for video MTI codecs. I saw many people simply
>>         stating there
>>         position in replies to this thread, which is ok if they want to
>>         say/reiterate it, but not addressing any of the points set for
>>         discussion by Sean.
>>
>>         For a call on consensus I would expect to be with a explicit
>>         subject,
>>         including or pointing to the (draft of) text to be adopted.
>>
>>         Which side got it wrong here?
>>
>>         Thanks,
>>         Daniel
>>
>>         --
>>         Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>>         http://twitter.com/#!/miconda
>>         <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> -
>>         http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         rtcweb mailing list
>>         rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>     -- 
>     Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>     http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda