On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Gonzalo,
Let's be clear on what is being suggested: a form preferential voting
On 11/28/13 10:17 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
>
> as you may know, the RTCWeb WG is trying to select a
> mandatory-to-implement video codec. So far, the WG has been unable to
> reach consensus using traditional consensus calls. Now, the WG is
> considering alternative options to make that decision.
>
> If you are interested in following that discussion on the RTCWeb list,
> this would be a good place to start:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg09909.html
>
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.
As Bernard Aboba wrote:
> [BA] It strikes me that once we venture beyond consensus and running
> code into voting, we have left our home behind for someplace else
> whose principles should at the least be articulated.
And I would go further. I would expect a very rough process ride if
this path is taken, and it should require IETF consensus given the
potential moral hazards it introduces to other activities. Failing that
consensus, the working group should find a way to sort themselves within
the bounds of our existing processes.
It might surprise people to find that I support Eliot's position on this.
I still believe that the NOMCON process is a liability that should be replaced by a democratic system The issue there is whether there is going to be accountability and whether people who speak on behalf of the IETF can do so with authority.
The issue here is different, the question is whether the people who write an deploy code can come to a consensus. A vote is not going to make that happen. If the WG votes for X but a browser provider with 30% of the market insists that they won't do X, a vote is not going to change matters.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/