Hi Matthew,
I hope I can answer your questions and resolve your objections.
On 2013-12-10 00:32, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
I believe we are way off the acceptable process track here.
First, there was a discussion and a call for rough consensus at the last
IETF in-person meeting. That call was not continued on the list, instead
a lack of consensus was declared at the meeting.
No, it wasn't because the chairs did not believe there would emerge any
consensus on the mailing list based on the input provided during the
meeting.
Next, there was a proposal from the chairs to vote in a particular way,
and a call for options on which to vote. It was claimed at that time
that after the list was compiled, the act of taking such a vote would be
taken to a consensus call. That never happened.
So this was a proposal for the a process. This proposal was heavily
debated and valid comments regarding issues was raised against it. Thus,
the chairs have selected to not proceed with the proposal. Instead we
will use this process.
Instead the chairs are now conducting a “straw poll” of their own
design, clearly in an effort to circumvent some very specific objections
to the proposed instant-runoff vote with restricted participation. But
again, instead of attempting to reach WG consensus for conducting such a
poll, it has simply been foisted upon us.
Yes, this process is intended to resolve all the major issues with the
previous proposal. It is designed to be open, provide more information
to all the WG participants about peoples positions and objections to the
various alternatives. It is information finding to enable us to take the
next step of identifying if there is any alternative we can make a
consensus call on.
I have not seen ANY replies to the message “Next Steps in Video Codec
Selection Process” that indicate working group consensus of ANY KIND for
conducting a poll in this format at this time or to follow the
subsequent steps described in that message.
No, we have not requested WG consensus for this one. This is a decision
we chair have made ourselves. And the reason for this is while the
previous process proposal did require WG consensus to be used, this
information seeking is something we chairs can initiate, perform. In
this case we do believe that the time is best spent on performing this
pool rather than discussing if it is going to be done or not. The WG
will by the end of this poll have more information and a better
understanding of the positions and objections against the various
alternatives proposed.
I am requesting that the chairs immediately suspend the “Straw Poll”
described below until such time as there is Working Group consensus to
spend the Working Group’s time and energy conducting the poll and/or to
continue with the subsequent steps called out in “Next Steps in Video
Codec Selection Process” at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html
The WG chairs believe they have good motivations and rights to call for
this straw poll. We will not suspend it. If you like to escalate your
objection please contact our Area Director Gonzalo Camarillo.
Regards
Magnus Westerlund
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto:
magnus(_dot_)westerlund(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------