Hi Adam,
I don't agree with you. I am a remote participant (2 years and never
attended meetings) in the IETF organisation, do you think that IETF is
fare in treating remote participants? I think the current IETF
direction is in favor of attended-meeting participants, so IMHO one
reason of some hidding their name is because the IETF still is not yet
able to control wrong behaviour of participants who think they are
well known. Thoes wrong behavior abuse peoples rights in IETF. If some
are well known, the reason is because they got better opportunity in
going to meetings, or that majority of participants are from two
regions (North America+Europe).
For me the IETF reputation is about 40% (evaluated by asking close
friends that did not participate and including the way I was treated
within 2 years), still needs more work to build its reputation (e.g. I
think some old participants need guidance to IETF visions). For me
participants' good reputation depend on their reactions: if I get a
nice reply from them, or if they don't only respond to known people,
or if they acknowledge efforts, or if they encourage other into IETF
visions, or if they provide good ideas/inputs, or if they manage
work/WG/IETF well, etc.
In IETF volunteers' reputations SHOULD always be high and respected,
but seems like the IETF give chance for abuse so its reputation makes
some people prefer to be anonymous so they try to save their self
reputation. We in IETF SHOULD not focus on people's reputation, we
SHOULD focus on ideas, reasons, work-quality, documents/RFCs
reputations and process-procedures reputations. We are here to
document IETF reputation but not to document a person reputation or
even his/her name. A person's name for me is only important when I
want to refer to his/her review, draft, idea, etc. Don't forget that
in procedure; any input into IETF is own also by IETF no matter what
was the name given, so bad behaviour makes IETF reputation bad and
then some people leave, or make anonymous names, or don't participate
just listen. IMO, the majority of subscribers (in WGs) are listeners
with zero participation.
AB
On 8/2/13, Adam Roach <adam(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com> wrote:
Moving to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, since I think this is not in any way
specific
to Berlin.
On 8/2/13 12:24, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
In rtcweb we have remote participants that prefer anonymity for a number
of reasons.
I'm going to make a broad assumption that the "number of reasons" all
relate to privacy. If that is incorrect, please weigh in.
The question is how this is handled in regards to note well, when they
want jabber scribes to relay opinions or proposals to the meeting.
Just a note for the future. I think we should allow anonymous listeners,
but should they really be allowed to participate?
We had a previous conversation around pseudonyms, which I think
concluded that pseudonyms are pretty much okay (and impossible to
reliably detect anyway).
Given this fact, someone can protect their identity through use of a
consistent pseudonym. This has the property of developing a persona
behind that pseudonym that the working group members can reasonably
interact with.
By contrast, attempting to participate in a truly anonymous fashion
rather than participating with a pseudonym seems to have very little
justification, with significant potential drawback for the working
group. The privacy implications are pretty much identical, but it
provides the illusion that one can act in a way that has no impact on a
persona's reputation. IMHO, this is ripe for bad behavior, bad faith
participation, and other abuses.
Given the availability of pseudonymous participation, I don't think we
need to tolerate anonymous participation.
/a