On 08/05/2013 12:31 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
but at least one anonymous jabber participant (named "Guest") did
remotely speak multiple times at the mic on one of the RAI working
group sessions this past week (at RTCWEB if I recall). I was
personally ok with it, but it was awkward.
Ah. I wasn't aware of that. Not stylish at all IMO on the part of
whoever was "Guest". I'd be confident that the chairs and
participants will deal with it ok though. We do manage to deal
with silliness (e.g. people with bad ideas) all the time, so I
don't see why this'd pose an insurmountable problem to a wg.
On 08/05/2013 06:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
The reasons to discourage anonymity aren't just "patent
nonsense" (although that should be sufficient and I rather like
the pun).
Thanks. The pun was accidental as it happens, but I did leave
it in after I spotted it :-)
Puns aside, its an important point. Most patents are nonsense
(in terms of being really inventive) and we shouldn't base
our processes anywhere near primarily on the existence of that
nonsense.
Despite all we say and believe about individual
participation, the IETF has a legitimate need to understand the
difference between comments on a specification from an audience
with diverse perspectives and organized campaigns or a loud
minority with a shared perspective.
Good point. We have similar issues with folks who do lots of
contract work I guess. But, IMO we should first make sure we can
hear the good points that are to be made, and only then modulate
our reactions to those in terms of who-pays-whom or whatever.
Put another way, regardless of patents or who's paying, if
someone (even anonymously) comes up with a really good technical
point, then we do have to pay attention. But I think we do do that.
In contrast, I think the real challenge remote participants face
is being heard. And when/if we solve that problem, I suspect that
remote participants with bad ideas will be a far worse problem
than those who'd like to submarine a patent or further a subtle
corporate agenda.
So again that leads me back to trying to encourage folks to just
make the tools better for us all and to only then try figure out
how we need to manage that. Perhaps Hadriel's anecdote above
means that how we use jabber is, after about a decade, now mature
enough that we ought think more about how we formalise its use.
I'm ok with waiting another longish time before even thinking
about how to do the same with successful inbound audio for
example.
S.