Hi Dave, to be clear and somewhat more concise, the WG does *not* intend to replace any part of the consensus process in use in the IETF. The next step for the WG is to work out what statement about codecs it is reasonable to include in the next revision of the document (an Internet Draft). That document will then go through the typical WG discussions, WGLC, IETF LC, IESG evaluation, and approval. As usual, at any stage the document will be discussed and possibly modified. So, what the chairs are proposing is a way for the working group to work out a statement about codecs around which they can build consensus. Of course, nothing guarantees that consensus will be actually achieved. With respect to the actual process being proposed, the chairs have listened to all the feedback received from the RTCWeb community and the IETF community as a whole. Taking all that feedback into consideration, they are going to be proposing next steps shortly. They have not done so yet simply because the flu hit them hard last week. Cheers, Gonzalo On 06/12/2013 6:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Gonzalo, > > > On 12/6/2013 2:57 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >> Where people seem to disagree, often strongly, is on how proposals that >> will be put forward for such evaluation by the WG and the IETF community >> can be generated. > > That's odd. I hadn't even noticed that that was part of the proposal > for voting circulated to the community, nor that it was a focus of > responses. > > From Magnus' original posting of the proposal: > > "A large number of documents, over an extended period of time, with > nothing published, suggests some deep and serious problems for an effort > in the IETF." > > That's not about generating proposals but about choosing among them. > > >> On a related note, there have been some comments about the RTCWeb chairs >> effectively attacking the IETF principles. I think those comments are >> unfair. We are talking about three former ADs in different areas all of >> whom have made significant contributions to the IETF community along >> many years. > > As financial reports often note: "Past performance is not a guarantee of > future returns..." > > More significantly, Gonzalo, you've just invoked an ad hominem argument > as a defense (or justification.) It's no more legitimate as a defense > than as an attack. Stated simply: the nature of the people who made > the proposal is irrelevant. What matters is the nature of the proposal. > > And my own reading of the criticisms of the proposal that was circulated > was that they did primarily focus on the nature of the proposal, rather > than on the nature of the proposal's authors. > > But as long as you've made this personal, what happened to the general > preference in the IETF -- especially for efforts that are complex or > otherwise difficult -- to have working group chairs /not/ be document > authors, so that the chairs can focus on /neutral/ efforts at managing > the process? > > While there are never guarantees about the progress of an IETF working > group, such a separation might have had strategic benefit for this > effort. I note a number of points of broader concern about this working > group: > > 1. Chartered 1.5 years ago. > > 2. 11 working group drafts, with 13 related drafts. > > 3. Nothing yet published. No overviews, architectures, > use cases or anything else foundational, nevermind actual > specifications. > > 4. WG can't even resolve choice of a component technology > > > Frankly it does not help that the effort already seems to have excellent > market and IETF mindshare as the 'future' of Internet 'rich > communications'. Even the recent IAOC request for a volunteer is > calling for "exposure" to the technology -- although the technology > isn't stable. > > A large number of documents, over an extended period of time, with > nothing published, suggests some deep and serious problems for an effort > in the IETF.. > > What am I mis-understanding? > > > d/ >