Subject: [codec] *draft* agenda

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:43:58 -0600

Eric Burger and I have created a *draft* agenda for the Codec BoF.
Feedback is welcome!

###

1. Note Well & Agenda Bashing (5 minutes)

2. Progress to Date (15 minutes)
   a. BoF at IETF 75 established constituency and interest
   b. Open issues: work process, requirements, ITU-T coordination
   c. Several individual drafts published and discussed on the list
   d. Coordination has occurred with ITU-T SG 16
   e. Consensus converging around draft charter

3. Key Question to Answer: Is IETF the Right Forum? (45 minutes)
   a. Informational presentation about ITU-T Study Group 16
   b. Informational presentation about IETF Codec WG
   c. Discussion about alternatives
   d. Determination of consensus

4. If IETF Is or Might Be the Right Forum: Charter Bashing (45 minutes)
   a. Problem statement
   b. Objectives
   c. Deliverables
   d. Milestones

5. Key WG Formation Hums (10 minutes)
   a. Is IETF the best place to do this work?
   b. If a WG is formed, will you write drafts?
   c. If a WG is formed, will you review drafts?
   d. If a WG is formed, will you otherwise participate?

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:11:47 -0700

This looks like a very reasonable agenda, except the humming process eliminates voting for those who cannot travel to the meeting.

Is there some better mechanism possible? Online voting by using a suitable conferencing package?
Or counting the votes from the Jabber IM  online participants?
If not, I suggest NOT use the "hum consensus" but some other criteria, such as having a credible team to produce the planned deliverables.

Incidentally, I believe having the IETF process dominated by folks who have a travel budget to be a generic problem, since it eliminates many creative individual experts to the detriment of those companies who (still) can afford the travel budget. From this perspective, humming is just a broken process.

My personal two cents (I plan to attend).
Thanks, Henry

On 10/30/09 12:43 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]> wrote:

###

_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:45:02 -0600

Hi Henry, comments inline.

On 10/30/09 12:11 PM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
> This looks like a very reasonable agenda, except the humming process
> eliminates voting for those who cannot travel to the meeting.
> 

I think that method has been used in the past, yes.

> If not, I suggest NOT use the “hum consensus” but some other criteria,
> such as having a credible team to produce the planned deliverables.

Well, hums are traditional.

That said, I do agree with something Adam Roach said at the BoF in
Stockholm. Quoting from the minutes...

###

Adam Roach @ mic (quoting from XMPP BoF minutes held at IETF 54):
"We should be chartering work based on the number of folks who want to
do things, not the number opposed." I think we've heard from a number of
people here who want to do the work and have competence in this area.

###

In Stockholm we established that we have people who want to do the work,
and who seem to be capable of doing the work.

Coming out of the Stockholm meeting, we also had several open issues,
which Cullen Jennings mentioned in his summary of the BoF at IETF 75
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec/current/msg00540.html>:

1. The scope and processes for a Codec WG were not clear. The work on
draft-valin-codec-guidelines has been meant to address those concerns,
and we've had a fairly comprehensive discussion about them.

2. The technical and business requirements were not clear. The technical
requirements have been covered by draft-valin-codec-requirements as
discussed on this list, and the business requirements (mainly IPR to
help ensure that the resulting codec(s) can be widely implemented and
easily distributed) are covered by draft-valin-codec-guidelines.

I think those open issues have been addressed about as completely as
possible to this point, as reflected in the I-Ds mentioned above, in
list discussions, and in the draft charter. Naturally if a WG is formed
then further discussion would happen within the group to reach consensus
on which I-Ds to accept as WG items, on exact requirements, etc.

An additional open issue was coordination with other SDOs in accordance
with liaison agreements in place. I know that discussions have occurred
with ITU-T regarding Study Group 16, but it is not my place to talk
about those conversations because I was not directly involved. I will
leave that for others to talk about, either on this list or at the BoF.
As far as I know, discussions have not occurred with other SDOs.

In any case, the foregoing text provides a bit of what I see as the
context for the BoF in Hiroshima. Other people might disagree, but I
think we've made good progress since Stockholm but need to reach
consensus on a few more topics as input to the IESG's deliberations
about whether it is appropriate to form a WG.

> Incidentally, I believe having the IETF process dominated by folks who
> have a travel budget to be a generic problem, since it eliminates many
> creative individual experts to the detriment of those companies who
> (still) can afford the travel budget. From this perspective, humming is
> just a broken process.

Let's take that up on [email-masked]. :)

/psa

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:48:32 +0200

Henry,

I see travel budget and willingness to travel as part of the commitment to
participate in the work a working group. 

Roni Even

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Henry Sinnreich
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:12 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [codec] *draft* agenda

Is there some better mechanism possible? Online voting by using a suitable
conferencing package?
Or counting the votes from the Jabber IM  online participants?
If not, I suggest NOT use the "hum consensus" but some other criteria, such
as having a credible team to produce the planned deliverables.

Incidentally, I believe having the IETF process dominated by folks who have
a travel budget to be a generic problem, since it eliminates many creative
individual experts to the detriment of those companies who (still) can
afford the travel budget. From this perspective, humming is just a broken
process.

###

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:01:30 -0700

Roni Even wrote:
> 
> 
> Henry,
> 
> I see travel budget and willingness to travel as part of the commitment
> to participate in the work a working group.
> 

I will not comment on this, but I wonder if ISOC could not have a Sponsorship
program for FOSS developers, similar to the existing sponsorship.  After all,
FOSS developers are the one writing the really good code for the Internet this
days, and the less likely to be able to secure a travel budget to attend the
IETF meetings.

>  
> 
> Roni Even
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On
> Behalf Of *Henry Sinnreich
> *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2009 8:12 PM
> *To:* Peter Saint-Andre; [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [codec] *draft* agenda
> 
>  
> 

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: [email-masked]
Professional email: [email-masked]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:16:27 -0600

> days, and the less likely to be able to secure a travel budget to attend the

That's a great idea. It might help us stay closer to running code, too.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "Gregory M. Lebovitz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:26:14 -0700

At 10:43 AM 10/30/2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>

s/has occurred/is occurring

Justification:  We have had a good call between IETF leaders and 
ITU-T SG 16 and other ITU-T leaders to ensure good coordination 
around this topic. I and Cullen are drafting a formal Liaison to the 
ITU-T, which is being reviewed by the IAB and will be sent this 
weekend. But this effort will entail continued and on-going 
coordination with ITU-T, as they have much to offer in this process.

Gregory.

>3. Key Question to Answer: Is IETF the Right Forum? (45 minutes)

Possible restatement:

"Does IETF have a reasonable chance of success compared to other forums?"

Justification:  The term "Right" is overloaded. Right based on what 
criteria? It's not that black and white. But we may or may not have a 
more reasonable chance of success _meeting the stated goals_ compared 
to other forums. That's not right or wrong, its more objective.

>    c. If a WG is formed, will you review drafts?

Do we need to add:

"If a WG is formed, will you test and characterize candidate code?"
?

I think we've made a lot of progress on this agenda, and I look 
forward to a constructive and interesting BoF.

Gregory

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
>iEYEARECAAYFAkrrJd4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzbEACfYZZEmxOpuXLqS5L9RvjtoaKA
>5Q8AmgLXzYojvvSH3kvsUFQK/VGlvkLn
>=NoNR
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----