Matthew,
Since you have escalated this to the area directors after Magnus's replay, I will leave them to respond to your main request, but I have two corrections to factual mis-statements:
Since you have escalated this to the area directors after Magnus's replay, I will leave them to respond to your main request, but I have two corrections to factual mis-statements:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At the in-person meetings, discussing the MTI video codec is agenda-exclusive of progressing any other document.
As attending the actual meetings would have told (or even reading their minutes), this is simply not true. We have had sessions related to resolving this issue, but in every case there have also been other topics discussed during the same IETF meeting, albeit in sometimes in other sessions.
I believe that objecting to the actions of the chairs is a bigger lever towards real progress than trying to be the one tiny voice in the corner trying to progress something else unilaterally during this storm.
The chairs have gratefully received and pushed action on reviews received on a variety of documents during this period, and there has been movement on data channel and the security documents driven by those who have chosen to continue to work on those issues. If you choose to ignore that work to focus on this issue, that's your choice of how to use your time, not an imposition by the chairs. Self-fulfilling prophecies tend to be, well, self-fulling, but they need not be universal.
I invite you to submit a review of any document currently before the working group, and I pledge to you that it will get attention from the chairs, no matter what else is going on.
regards,
Ted Hardie
regards,
Ted Hardie