Subject: [rtcweb] clarifications on current discussions - re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec

From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 20:39:17 +0100

With many forks of the thread and various opinions, can anyone clarify
the expectation of these discussions. Ideally will be the WG chairs
stating what is the role of the current discussions, specially to the
initial thread with the subject 'confirming sense of the room: mti
codec' started by Sean Turner - link to archive:

   - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html

My understanding was that it is about clarifying what happened during
the sessions in Honolulu, not a call on consensus for the proposal. I
get the feeling that many understood it differently, being the call on
consensus for video MTI codecs. I saw many people simply stating there
position in replies to this thread, which is ok if they want to
say/reiterate it, but not addressing any of the points set for
discussion by Sean.

For a call on consensus I would expect to be with a explicit subject,
including or pointing to the (draft of) text to be adopted.

Which side got it wrong here?

Thanks,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:03:28 -0500

<hat type="AD" subtype="process-steward"/>

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the question.  The goal of Sean's message is indeed to seek
consensus on the codec question.  The time for discussion is to allow for
any other issues to be raised, beyond those that were raised in the room in
Honolulu.  At the end of the comment period on Friday, Sean will review the
discussion and make a determination as to whether a rough consensus has
been reached.

--Richard

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email-masked]
> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

---

From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:26:10 +0100

Hi Richard,

thanks for the clarification! IMO, the initial message content was not
stating explicitly this is the goal and apparently it misled the
expectation from some of us.

Maybe it would be appropriate to have a fresh message sent by WG
chairs/AD (or other IETF 'official' involved in the process) to say it
explicitly by subject, just in case someone (else than me) didn't
understand (from current discussions) that there is an ongoing call on
consensus for video MTI codec. There are still three days left that can
prevent negative reactions later.

Daniel

On 16/12/14 21:03, Richard Barnes wrote:
> consensus on the codec question.  The time for discussion is to allow
> for any other issues to be raised, beyond those that were raised in
> the room in Honolulu.  At the end of the comment period on Friday,
> Sean will review the discussion and make a determination as to whether
> a rough consensus has been reached.
>
> --Richard
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> -
>     http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:25:03 -0500

Hey Daniel,

I think Sean's original message was pretty clear about this:
"""
After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and typing
the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in the room to
add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In
keeping with IETF process, I am confirming this consensus call on the list.
"""

Nonetheless, if you think people have missed this point, feel free to
prompt them to comment in that thread.

Thanks,
--Richard

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email-masked]
> Maybe it would be appropriate to have a fresh message sent by WG chairs/AD
> (or other IETF 'official' involved in the process) to say it explicitly by
> subject, just in case someone (else than me) didn't understand (from
> current discussions) that there is an ongoing call on consensus for video
> MTI codec. There are still three days left that can prevent negative
> reactions later.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>
> Daniel-Constantin Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
>

---

From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:07:58 +0100

Hi Richard,

comments inline.

On 16/12/14 23:25, Richard Barnes wrote:
> After the discussion, some clarifying questions about the hums, and
> typing the hum questions on the screen, there was rough consensus in
> the room to add (aka “shove”) the proposed text into
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-video.  In keeping with IETF process, I am
> confirming this consensus call on the list.
> """
>

Maybe the sequence of the events combined with rather sophisticated
presentation (of what might have been expected as a simple, direct call
to vote yes or no) has compromised the intended goal of the message for
some people (or maybe only for me).

I got it as being the presentation of what happened on site in Honolulu
for the video MTI codec session, with the confirmation of chairs that
there was a consensus call in the room for that specific proposal,
resulting in a rough consensus, in the spirit that what happens on site
is summarized 'officially' on mailing list. At the same time being a
very active discussion on 'shoving' the proposed text, I thought that it
needs to be done first (rise issues about & discuss up to Dec 19) and
afterwards an explicit call on consensus with 'shoved' text.

> prompt them to comment in that thread.

OK.

Thanks,
Daniel

>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
>     thanks for the clarification! IMO, the initial message content was
>     not stating explicitly this is the goal and apparently it misled
>     the expectation from some of us.
>
>     chairs/AD (or other IETF 'official' involved in the process) to
>     say it explicitly by subject, just in case someone (else than me)
>     didn't understand (from current discussions) that there is an
>     ongoing call on consensus for video MTI codec. There are still
>     three days left that can prevent negative reactions later.
>
>     Daniel
>
>
>>     Thanks for the question.  The goal of Sean's message is indeed to
>>     seek consensus on the codec question.  The time for discussion is
>>     to allow for any other issues to be raised, beyond those that
>>     were raised in the room in Honolulu.  At the end of the comment
>>     period on Friday, Sean will review the discussion and make a
>>     determination as to whether a rough consensus has been reached.
>>
>>     --Richard
>>
>>
>>            -
>>         http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13696.html
>>
>     http://twitter.com/#!/miconda <http://twitter.com/#%21/miconda> - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>