Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 28 November 2013 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 D03C91AE0A2; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:30:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 2BcpLg3NF6Mo; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D2D1ADF97; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:30:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.211.51.212] (rbiguest.jcresorts.com [206.170.126.120] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rASGTx7U024845 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:30:02 -0800
Message-ID: <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:29:10 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:30:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:02:48 -0800
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:30:07 -0000

On 11/28/2013 7:34 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> if the working group has consensus to vote, it's probably because
> interested parties have some reason to believe the vote will go
> their way.
...
> So if the working group is willing to agree to a vote, and unwilling
>  to agree to a coin toss, that says something _very important_ about
>  the status of consensus in the working group.


No it doesn't.  Or at least, not what you indicate, above, that it says.

The thinking you describe is possible, of course, but it's not
guaranteed.  People's motives and expectations and logic can vary quite
a bit in a situation like this.

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.

Let's not confuse 'possible' with 'certain'.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net