Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 C8E3A1AE486; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:34:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 fXPLrLjrIlUl; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09221AE48B; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:34:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a1so10319680wgh.29 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:34:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=O6EY2xf0GC9WzU2VQCwbihaS84Pv8JHMMw11WCk4/l4=; b=vqIoqRXWSMkEyFvExnzDwZ0ErUDQFklDEqs+6GGUcnfiyxvMz7Het4KU2FfguQG6Bm xybshXfFvcnYHQ+DBwsjv7+TidBtCKR7n2dvlGHZZ1QE/CoYvJhWWTqB7GO4sdqOB0sA lUFadMtgSlQ+sDfXLJyaOyqF26IuyM6Apf2+7c0KXfL3KWkzArg1nbjnUgquCC/DgO9A 1LwRQab6tL+lxy1hVBx4OUd37w2wAeldi2LUSf3FMe1jVH5i/KC2+BRLMm34QIzHu9ny HhBUiBmBHlw3zdKGEKK747OPvhZ47lEoe6DyuIk+RxkrLr2uMxQC5VHhFN4sCpMELkOc DwfA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.92.230 with SMTP id cp6mr18689322wib.0.1385998481098; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:34:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.172.9 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:34:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5006.1385666853@sandelman.ca>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com> <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net> <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com> <5006.1385666853@sandelman.ca>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:34:41 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN5SAX_UFhqgTU6EzB+6W8oOZZCH8kJ5jdQ4g3TRjauYLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043892cf200e9404ec8eeb82
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
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: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:34:46 -0000

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>wrote;wrote:

>
> Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
>     > On Nov 28, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>     >> As merely one obvious example, people can simply be tired of the
>     >> impasse and eagerly seek progress and be willing to settle on any
>     >> mechanism they think will fairly break it -- even if it works
> against
>     >> the outcome they prefer.
>
>     > The one tidbit you may be missing is that the working group
>     > specifically chose not to do a coin toss.  So "willing to settle for
>     > any mechanism" clearly doesn't apply in this case.
>
> That tells me that the participants are not willing to live with losing and
> move on, and so no voting process will work either.
>
[MB] Exactly. [/MB]

>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>