Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

No: this is what the sort of statement get *me* an epic beat down:
        Why do this sort of thing here when you can do it in 3GPP? ETSI has 
membership, voting, and the whole mobile and telco crowd.

If I cannot tell the difference between IETF and 3GPP and 3GPP procedures, it 
is time to go home.

On Dec 1, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Ted Hardie <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Melinda Shore 
> <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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.
>
>
> For what it's worth, all the chairs agree that failure to get consensus is a 
> valid outcome and it may be where we end up.  The internal discussion among 
> the chairs and RAI ADs was extremely extensive and not at all fun; think 
> soul-searching, beating of breasts, tearing of sack cloth, and wearing of 
> ashes.   Trust us that we did not do this lightly; as one of us put it in the 
> internal discussion: "We're going to get an epic beat down for this".
>
> So why did we put ourselves forward for that?  Because we're charged as WG to 
> make the WebRTC ecosystem as complete and strong as we can.  if we don't have 
> a decision on this issue, we're creating a standard that will be hobbled out 
> of the gate.  Its baseline negotiation mechanism means it has some freedom of 
> movement, and it may eventually get up a good speed. But this hurts it in 
> ways that it is very hard for us to ignore.  We'd be going out with a large 
> likelihood of isolated WebRTC communities, especially in mobile apps, instead 
> of a unified ecosystem.  Balancing that pain against this is not easy.  
>
> We would have preferred to get consensus; we would have preferred over this 
> to get an RFC 3929 decision.  And at no time did we propose imposing voting 
> unilateraly.  We have sought the consensus of the working group on it, to see 
> if this works as a last ditch effort to see if there is *any* way forward.  
>
> So, three ex-ADs and two current ones agreed to go this far out on a limb to 
> get some way forward. It was sufficiently important for us to put this out, 
> _knowing we'd get an epic beat down for it_.  That's how much this decision 
> means.
>
> There may not be any way forward, and we'll accept that if that is the result 
> of this discussion.  I personally continue to hope that this set of exchanges 
> will raise awareness among working group participants of the importance of 
> pushing to a common standard here, and that we may see some common ground 
> emerge.  
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
>  
> Melinda

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail