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

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

Dear William,

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

You can always put forward your ideas for consideration, this is exactly why this ad-hoc group exists in the first place. The ideas can be submitted for AHG discussion at any time and do not require a Call for Proposals - in fact, it's the ideas from group members that may prompt issuing the CFP, but it is not always the case. Sometimes, the ideas are concrete and to the point, and accompanied by specific language of the spec amendments - this AHG have had many occasions when ideas were discussed and agreed upon resulting in a proposed spec amendment without issuing a CFP. So, as it stands right now, the responses to the CFP are due no later than January 7th, but the ideas for AHG consideration can be put forward at any time, the door is always open.

Regards,
Vladimir


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William_J_G Overington [mailto:wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 4:42 AM
> To: ostermann at tnt.uni-hannover.de; yklwhite at gmail.com; Levantovsky,
> Vladimir; OTspec (mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com)
> Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] RE: Final (was Tentative) schedule for the
> AHG meeting
> 
> 
> 
> > 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