-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com]
On 12/10/13 16:33, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
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.
Then light a candle.
The working group is made of its participants, of which you are presumably
one. Start a conversation about something else. I agree that there are other
deliverables, and there's no reason we can't discuss and progress them in
parallel with any codec-related discussions.
At the in-person meetings, discussing the MTI video codec is agenda-exclusive
of progressing any other document.
On the mailing list, discussing the MTI video codec is drowning out any other
discussion (as many are simply ignoring the list entirely) and slowing the work
on any other document (as many are time-limited as to their participation, and
are using their limited time to figure out how to strategically respond to
ranked-choice voting alternatives instead of how to progress other documents)
Start here; dive in anywhere:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/
/a
____
P.S. FWIW, I think the chairs are doing a perfectly reasonable job under some
of the most difficult circumstances I've seen in 16 years of IETF work. For
the
past couple of meeting cycles, the problem hasn't even been the codec
discussions; it's been the hyperaggressive meta-conversations talking
*about* the codec conversations. From that perspective, you *are* standing
in the corner playing a vuvuzela as a member of a highly disruptive vuvuzela
chorus. We formally have three chairs, which is already large for a working
group. We really don't need the hundred or so participants to be back-seat
chairs as well.
There are chairs for a reason, both at the in-person meetings and on the
mailing list. The chairs *could* have shut down the conversation about the
codecs and they *could* have shut down the meta-conversations about the codec
discussion, but they have not. Instead they have consumed several hours of
several meetings and on an issue that appears to be diverging, not converging
(and consuming an ever greater percentage of the mailing list traffic), despite
much other unfinished work... much of it requiring cooperation with other
working groups in order to close. I believe that objecting to the actions of
the chairs is a bigger lever towards real progress than trying to be the one
tiny voice in the corner trying to progress something else unilaterally during
this storm.
Matthew Kaufman