More to the point, if the WG cannot come to IETF consensus, that itself is sufficient to let the IESG know the WG (a bunch of close experts) is not *READY* to select a single codec. If the WG is not *READY* to pick a single codec, neither is the IETF. The proposal is DOA. BTW, per the rules, I am eligible to vote. Sigh. On Nov 28, 2013, at 6:18 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Let's be clear on what is being suggested: a form preferential voting > rather than continuing to seek rough consensus through other > alternatives. The ramifications of what is being proposed extend well > beyond the working group. That is not how our organization operates. > > Quite. > > Both Arrow's Theorum and and willingness to appeal have both rightly been raised. If nobody else appeals the decision, then I will - assuming I'm allowed to - if it gets this far. > > I think that two consensus calls should be taken at this stage: > > 1) Does the working group (and, possibly, the IETF) actually want to mandate a single codec at this stage, or merely advise implementors that both H.264 and VP8 are deployed in the field? > > 2) If the Working Group does want to mandate a single codec, is there consensus for one of the alternate decision-making processes described in RFC 3929? This is our best guess at what to do here; despite it being a (presumably expired) Experimental track RFC. > > Allowing working groups to create new process on the fly without involving IETF-wide consensus seems like a veyr dangerous precedent to set, and one that would invite substantial abuse. > > Dave.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail