Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@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 3FD931AE283 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 9aWIhR856W7U for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9221AE131 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id va2so243685obc.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=WAKeTMaRpYAMDmjCtkUIT4g4JHf3QEdXJVJRAH4KC58=; b=biVJPkNeXCw3oyNNdfJmYjTCF41zIPTOuJCpmV096rCr8VV/+kSyWclURDS/i4IvUO o/4CYbc7RP1ERpY/GjDDwp5Feng1rVdBlA0oPkNaI82/z1G4gQvdFn5H3ZSlr7J2L6Ga yuytiuBgMmewJypYsu3JsLeaQygr+D142k9qJoubYFbXBBMehiD2NOKjn6nwcvgbFLkq B6SZk1Nrul5B6MxmE5oyRmreuNn5w4sQSekhkbGPU5wJFSaJX02lp+PDB3bPaGToiRbo KRSwEn/gzI3UqDxBR76lkoSpVv2royVJZZvDqIrPsk3P+tXBpT24bjQ4yaXBiRQZZ2Fd w/Zg==
X-Received: by 10.182.246.39 with SMTP id xt7mr7006172obc.16.1385062695067; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.68.164 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:37:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:37:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2na+x3a-Ftnz4j4Zgzo_eviPqCw80Npq2bO4womDBF0CA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:38:24 -0000

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
> On 11/21/13 10:56, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>
>> Following an IETF meeting on Jabber doesn't count as participating?
>>
>> The "big guy vs little guy" narrative continues...
>
>
> I think that's a bit specious. If someone is following the issue at such a
> distance that they haven't expressed an opinion on the mailing list, I can't
> see how taking a vote from them counts as anything other than simple,
> old-fashioned ballot stuffing.

They might have just been active on the W3C webrtc list and watched
here to see what is happening with codecs, but haven't expressed their
position.


> I'll take it one step further. I find the prospect that we're allowing blue
> sheets to stand in for participation to be highly questionable: letting the
> tourists vote is weighting the opinion of demonstrably uninvolved (or
> less-involved) parties at the same level as those who have actually been
> working on the topic. I do not think that a blue-sheet sign in without any
> on-list participation should be sufficient to participate in the kind of
> process the chairs are proposing.

We could add that participation on the W3C webrtc list also qualifies.


> Or perhaps I'm missing something. Is there something about the capabilities
> of "the little guy" that makes sending an email an unrealistically high
> barrier to entry?

To address the little guys even more, we could also add that
participation on the discuss-webrtc list also qualifies.

Just my 2c worth.

Cheers,
Silvia.