ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [87attendees] procedural question with remote participation

2013-08-03 05:20:48

2 aug 2013 kl. 16:12 skrev Dan York <york(_at_)isoc(_dot_)org>:

Olle,


On 8/2/13 12:24 PM, "Olle E. Johansson" <oej(_at_)edvina(_dot_)net> wrote:

In rtcweb we have remote participants that prefer anonymity for a number
of reasons.

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 don't allow anonymous comments at the microphone in face-to-face
meetings, requiring all people to clearly state their names and have those
names recorded in the meeting minutes and in the Jabber log.    I don't
see why we would change this for remote participants.

In all the years I've been doing Jabber-scribing, I've actually never run
into a case where a remote attendee requested anonymity.  I would have
been puzzled like you.  Obviously, anyone can be "anonymous" when joining
a Jabber chat room and can even make all the comments they want in the
chat room, but I think the moment they request a relay to the mic and the
comment goes into the audio record and thereby also the meeting minutes
then the comment needs to have a name attached to it.

(moving to ietf mailing list)

Absolutely.

Now, should we add an automatic message when someone joins the chat rooms, or a 
message when meetings begin that all comments made in the chat room is also 
participation under the note well?

/O