[MPEG-OTSPEC] Consensus Protocol

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 12:42 AM Dave Crossland wrote:
In thread RE: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Updates to specification, On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:22 PM Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com<mailto:pgcon6 at msn.com>> wrote:
I have pointed out in the past and again this morning in another thread that a weakness in the current AHG process is that it’s possible for things to go into OFF without really having had a lot of review from implementers. Not that there hasn’t been reasonable opportunity for review, but more that the engagement is passive: a proposal can be made and incorporated unless objections are raised, with silence treated as implicit consent. But I don’t think it can really be considered consent if a proposal wasn’t actually reviewed: silence gives no indication up, down or sideways. I’d prefer to see more thumbs up on anything before adoption.

Hmm... Whose thumbs ought to go up, and if someone gives a thumbs down, what then?

Vlad, I'd like to request from you that, as chair, you write down and share the full AHG consensus protocol you want the group to use, as a proposal, and see if the group can agree to it, according to itself :)

The long standing practice in MPEG and in this AHG group has been rooted in the simple principle that silence means approval, whatever the topic of a discussion might be.

The simple reasoning behind this approach is that it’s individual responsibility of each member to act. Our decisions may be subject to external limitations and may be time-limited – the window of opportunity to do something (whether it is submitting a proposal for the upcoming WG meeting, or responding to an open ISO ballot that has strictly defined deadline for comments submission, etc.) imposes certain deadlines. The timelines are usually few months long, offering ample opportunities to plan ahead and do what needs to be done, but, in the end, inaction isn’t always an option. Failure to submit a proposal to an upcoming WG meeting may not be a big deal (there will always be next meeting in 3-4 months’ time), but failure to respond to an open ballot within the established deadline is critical, especially if changes and corrections have to be introduced by ballot comments and it is the only opportunity to do so. Given ample time to act, when the critical deadlines are looming – there is no excuse for inaction.

The alternative approach of asking for explicit approvals before the group can proceed (proposed by Peter) is an open invitation for abuse – one can simply ignore the deadlines and delay things indefinitely by denying the AHG his/her response. I am strongly against giving such a power to any individual. If the topic of discussion is important to a member and/or member organization, the onus is on that member to act, to review the proposed changes and to respond with an objection, if it’s warranted. Any objections raised within the announced deadline for response will be treated with due respect and consideration, and the alternate proposals are always considered, but in absence of an objection – the silence is approval!

This AHG has always been striving to (and, so far, has been successful at) reaching consensus decisions, resolving objections with edits and proposed changes that we as a group can agree on. When consensus decision cannot be reached, the escalation path is simple – bring it to the attention of the WG. Like I mentioned in one of my earlier emails, the AHG is not empowered to make any binding decisions – our outputs are proposals and/or recommendations to the WG. When we reach a consensus decision that is presented as input contribution the WG with the AHG recommendation to proceed (and no objections raised during the WG meeting) the proposal is usually accepted, but it is the WG power and responsibility to make decisions – we can only inform those decisions.

For the reasons described above, I suggest that the long-standing practice of placing a responsibility on each individual member to review the proposed changes / comments, and to act within the established and announced timelines should stand as is. Failure to act and to respond in time (a.k.a. silence) is treated as approval!

Thank you,
Vlad


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200826/6a690884/attachment-0001.html>