On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 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.