Also please note that I am objecting to the lack of WG consensus on following
the *entire list* of "next steps" called out in the introductory mail
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html and not
simply the act of the chairs calling for a straw poll.
If not simply a veiled version of the "vote" - which it is, given that the next
step is that the chairs will identify "an option" based on the results of said
straw poll and issue a consensus call on that single option - I do agree that a
straw poll is something that does not *necessarily* require Working Group
consensus to conduct. However, both the particular and detailed form of this
straw poll, and that continuing this discussion has caused a major disruption
to the Working Group progress on any other issues are both highly concerning,
and that is what forms the basis for my objection and subsequent escalation.
For reference, the above-mentioned list is quoted here:
-- Conduct a straw poll to gather information on which option might achieve
consensus
-- Chairs identify an option based on the results of the straw poll and issue
a consensus call
-- If there is consensus (as judged by Richard Barnes), the selected option
is reflected in a WG document
-- The WG document is confirmed via the normal process of WGLC and IETF LC
Matthew Kaufman
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Matthew
Kaufman
(SKYPE)
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:33 PM
To: Magnus Westerlund; Ted Hardie; rtcweb(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Gonzalo
Camarillo;
Richard Barnes; Cullen Jennings; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Matthew's Objections: was Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video
Codec Alternatives
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund
[mailto:magnus(_dot_)westerlund(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com]
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.
Spending the Working Group's time on picking an MTI video codec at this
point is just as disruptive to the vital work the WG needs to complete as it
would be for me to stand in the corner of the next WG meeting continuously
blowing a vuvuzela.
Since taking up valuable meeting time on this topic and considerable mailing
list thread with this topic, we are no closer to a decision, and much more
importantly, it appears that zero progress has been made on nothing else
that the WG has signed up to deliver.
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.
I believe that the "straw poll" is both a thinly veiled recasting of the
original
"vote" proposal *and* that the Working Group is having its time and energy
wasted on this progress.
As a result, I am not confident at this time that the chairs are directing the
Working Group in a way that will produce its chartered output in a timely
manner.
The Area Director is already copied and I would like this message considered
as escalation of my previous objection and request to suspend the poll.
Matthew Kaufman