On Nov 30, 2013, at 8:54 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.
Melinda
We have NOT called for a vote. We have NOT even sent out an consensus call to
see if there is consensus to use an alternative process. We sent an email to
discuss that possibility. I really wish people would actually look at what is
going on.
I would like to point out that this discussion has been going on for years and
has had several consensus calls, and straw polls have already been taken on it.
The alternative consensus process being discussed included everyone that had
previous been involved in any way whats so ever in the discussion or expressed
any opinion on previous consensus calls on subject. Its not totally
unreasonable to think that most people that cared to be part of the decisions
had already been involved in being part of the decision and this included all
them. For folks that have been following this, yes updated proposal which
includes the jabber folks but that has never been sent to list due to still
waiting on other things.
(Cullen - one of the co-chairs for rtcweb)