On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:27:26PM +0100, stephane.proust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi > > It is not clear for me how is handled the editing process of the Charter and > how the agreement or not on the different points contained in it can be > assessed ! > > The current version is not acceptable, at least with respect to the way > relationships with other SDOs are considered by IETF : > > The Charter states first the "The goal of this working group is to develop a > single high-quality audio codec" considering (on what basis ?) that "there > are no standardized, high-quality audio codecs that meet all of the following > three conditions" > > However in a next section it is said that "The working group will communicate > detailed description of the requirements and goals to other SDOs including > the ITU-T, 3GPP, and MPEG to help determine if existing codecs meet the > requirements" > > It clearly means that IETF do not care about the answer from these SDOs since > the Group already knows the answer that is already written in the first > sentence of the Charter and that the objective is anyway to develop something > whatever the answers and proposals from these SDOs are Doesn't the IETF grant a voice to any contributor in the process of building consensus? I don't think anyone with a genuine interest in this project would ignore genuinely useful input from any organisation, would they? How would your concern be a problem if this process is conducted in the open and all SDOs have equal access and input to the shaping of it? The good and bad ideas from these SDOs should be weighed and assayed like any other, no? We can't demand they contribute, we can only welcome them by the measure of how and what they do choose to, should they choose to. Good Faith is an addictive thing to reciprocate. I'm not seeing any particular lack of it from this group, are you? Ron _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf