Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Silvia Pfeiffer <> Thu, 21 November 2013 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD931AE283 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9aWIhR856W7U for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9221AE131 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id va2so243685obc.7 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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 with SMTP id xt7mr7006172obc.16.1385062695067; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:38:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:37:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:37:55 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Adam Roach <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 19:38:24 -0000

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Adam Roach <> 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

> 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.