Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Adam Roach <> Thu, 21 November 2013 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997BF1AE050 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:13:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yXRJ3KAkIH_V for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:13:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4BDD1AE001 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:13:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Orochi.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rALJDFGa074276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:13:16 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:13:11 -0800
From: Adam Roach <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Justin Uberti <>, "Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
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 19:13:27 -0000

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.

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.

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?