On Nov 30, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/30/13 4:45 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: >> And if the problem is that bad, that it's impossible to reach >> consensus in the WG, what about replacing the chairs? ... > > Not for failure to gain consensus, by any means. "No consensus, > do nothing" is a legitimate (if frustrating) outcome. I think > they showed really questionable judgment in calling for a vote > and laying out eligibility criteria, and for me that's a huge issue > (congratulations, guys - just like that you changed us into a > member organization) but failure to gain consensus is a valid > outcome. > > Melinda > We have NOT called for a vote. We have NOT even sent out an consensus call to see if there is consensus to use an alternative process. We sent an email to discuss that possibility. I really wish people would actually look at what is going on. I would like to point out that this discussion has been going on for years and has had several consensus calls, and straw polls have already been taken on it. The alternative consensus process being discussed included everyone that had previous been involved in any way whats so ever in the discussion or expressed any opinion on previous consensus calls on subject. Its not totally unreasonable to think that most people that cared to be part of the decisions had already been involved in being part of the decision and this included all them. For folks that have been following this, yes updated proposal which includes the jabber folks but that has never been sent to list due to still waiting on other things. (Cullen - one of the co-chairs for rtcweb)