Re: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

[<[e-mail]>]

I believe this MTI codec discussion in rtcweb is actually a foretaste of what MTI security discussions will be like after draft-farrell-perpass-attack. Mandatory To Implement and discussion around that will basically stall everything.

Having three chairs in a group is a sign of dysfunction. DTNRG has three chairs... there security was pretty much MTI and promoted by the chairs. in rtcweb, the codec is MTI and promoted by the chairs. This is more than a coincidence or an analogy.

I've seen the future of the IETF. It lacks accord and progress - though it won't want for MTI and process.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/


________________________________________
From: ietf [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) [[e-mail]]
Sent: 11 December 2013 07:45
To: Adam Roach; Magnus Westerlund; Ted Hardie; [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo; Richard Barnes; Cullen Jennings; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Matthew's Objections: was Re: Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> On 12/10/13 16:33, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
> > Spending the Working Group's time on picking an MTI video codec at this
> point is just as disruptive to the vital work the WG needs to complete as it
> would be for me to stand in the corner of the next WG meeting continuously
> blowing a vuvuzela.
>
> Then light a candle.
>
> The working group is made of its participants, of which you are presumably
> one. Start a conversation about something else. I agree that there are other
> deliverables, and there's no reason we can't discuss and progress them in
> parallel with any codec-related discussions.

At the in-person meetings, discussing the MTI video codec is agenda-exclusive of progressing any other document.

On the mailing list, discussing the MTI video codec is drowning out any other discussion (as many are simply ignoring the list entirely) and slowing the work on any other document (as many are time-limited as to their participation, and are using their limited time to figure out how to strategically respond to ranked-choice voting alternatives instead of how to progress other documents)

>
> Start here; dive in anywhere:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/
>
> /a
>
> ____
> P.S. FWIW, I think the chairs are doing a perfectly reasonable job under some
> of the most difficult circumstances I've seen in 16 years of IETF work. For the
> past couple of meeting cycles, the problem hasn't even been the codec
> discussions; it's been the hyperaggressive meta-conversations talking
> *about* the codec conversations. From that perspective, you *are* standing
> in the corner playing a vuvuzela as a member of a highly disruptive vuvuzela
> chorus. We formally have three chairs, which is already large for a working
> group. We really don't need the hundred or so participants to be back-seat
> chairs as well.

There are chairs for a reason, both at the in-person meetings and on the mailing list. The chairs *could* have shut down the conversation about the codecs and they *could* have shut down the meta-conversations about the codec discussion, but they have not. Instead they have consumed several hours of several meetings and on an issue that appears to be diverging, not converging (and consuming an ever greater percentage of the mailing list traffic), despite much other unfinished work... much of it requiring cooperation with other working groups in order to close. I believe that objecting to the actions of the chairs is a bigger lever towards real progress than trying to be the one tiny voice in the corner trying to progress something else unilaterally during this storm.

Matthew Kaufman