I can live with this, or even no change. Mo
On 5/13/15, 5:46 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I would say we go with “competitive (in the sense of having comparable or better performance)” I don’t think choosing different words in this charter is going to have much effect on liaison relationships one way or the other. Alissa On May 13, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, Eric, On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I can live with any of these. As can I. I can live with no change, but another SDO has already sent us a love note about the charter asking why we hate them because we want to compete with them, quoting the word "competitive". Anything that makes liaison relationships settle down seems helpful. Just trying to get to yes. Speaking for me, you've got that. I balloted Yes without holding out for the change :-) Spencer -Ekr On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Comparable and competitive express the same goal with slightly different connotations. Comparable sounds more neutral / objective. Neither express “outperform” as Keith suggests. There was indeed BoF discussion around the desire to “outperform”, but no consensus to require this in the charter, hence “competitive”. I prefer “Has comparable performance”, just to avoid any misinterpretation or connotation of “Is competitive”. But I don’t think either language will really matter all that much. Concerns in other SDOs are unlikely to be alleviated with any charter language. Mo On 5/13/15, 9:31 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I honestly don't care about this, but how about "having competitive performance" -Ekr On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:29 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I do not believe that we do mean the same. This got a little discussion in the BOF, but I see liitle point in developing a codec where the only selling point is a claimed royalty free, something that can never be guaranteed. Therefore I certainly would like to see the aim of development to be something that is in some aspect better, and thus competitive, rather than just the same, as in comparable. Maybe we can find another word, but I am unhappy with comparable. Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: video-codec > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) > Sent: 13 May 2015 13:21 > To: Spencer Dawkins > Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; The IESG > Subject: Re: [video-codec] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on > charter-ietf-netvc-00-03: (with COMMENT) > > I support removing "competitive" to avoid any > misinterpretation. Since we mean "comparable", we should just > say so directly rather than parenthetically. > > Mo > > > > > On May 13, 2015, at 1:38 AM, Spencer Dawkins > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-netvc-00-03: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and > reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. > (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't know if the cat is too far out of the bag for this to > matter, but > > > "1. Is competitive (in the sense of having comparable > performance) with current video codecs in widespread use." > > has already piqued the interest of our dear friends at > another SDO. Is it possible to pick a less interesting word > than "competitive" here and elsewhere in the charter? > > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec > _______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
_______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
