[mpeg-OTspec] RE: Final (was Tentative) schedule for the AHG meeting

[William_J_G Overington]

> Just a friendly reminder that the responses to the Call for Proposals are due on or before January 7, 2014, and need to be submitted via email to all three recipients listed in the CFP.

I would have liked to have put forward ideas for consideration, but, as things stand, I cannot.

Some readers might like to know my reasons.

The main reason is the following requirement.

quote

Proponents are advised that, upon acceptance by MPEG for further evaluation, MPEG may require that they shall provide reference software implementations of their proposed technologies suitable for integration in the MPEG-4 reference software by a time the OFF standard shall enter DIS stage (October 2014). By responding to this Call, Proponents agree to be bound by the obligations contained in this point.

end quote

I am an independent researcher, doing what I can, putting forward ideas. I do not have the facilities to produce the required software.

However, please consider the following quote.

quote

However, MPEG reserve the right to adopt none, one, or a combination of several proposals as well as to issue another call for proposals. All decisions will be made by consensus of the experts of MPEG. 

end quote

Please note particularly the phrase "combination of several proposals" as that seems to imply that an idea could go forward in a combination of ideas with - perhaps - no obligation upon the proposer of an idea to produce software.

So the requirement to provide software seems to be too universal for gathering ideas. Perhaps people and companies could be allowed to put forward ideas without the requirement to provide software as long as they say up front that software cannot be provided.

Maybe a company that could produce the software would happily agree to implement an idea that was accepted by the committee.

Another reason is the following quote.

quote

2.    Organization (i.e., name of proposing company)

end quote

I am an independent researcher and not representing an organization.

I am unsure whether an individual contribution would be acceptable in practice, but it does seem that it is companies only from what is in the document.

William Overington

3 January 2014