More to the point, if the WG cannot come to IETF consensus, that itself is
sufficient to let the IESG know the WG (a bunch of close experts) is not
*READY* to select a single codec. If the WG is not *READY* to pick a single
codec, neither is the IETF.
The proposal is DOA.
BTW, per the rules, I am eligible to vote. Sigh.
On Nov 28, 2013, at 6:18 AM, Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net> wrote:
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.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail