On 3/31/16 11:55 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/31/16 10:29 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
A registration requirement for remote participants is a major
policy change and one for people who merely want to passively
observe is something I believe the community has several times
concluded is inappropriate given privacy, etc., concerns.
Yes, and inconsistent with the recent apparent consensus that
someone will be whitelisted for all IETF mailing lists if they're
signed up for any.
in my decade or so of moderating ietf mailing lists... The overwhelming
source of whitelist additions was people using multiple accounts. and or
people sending stuff to lists to which they aren't subscribed e.g. the iesg.
neither case leaves much to the imagination
I do think there ought to be registration for people who are
active participants and who may influence outcomes - there are
tradeoffs around accountability and privacy that kick in in
that circumstance. I don't think those tradeoffs apply to
merely consuming information.
In particular, I think it's weird and represents somewhat
incoherent engineering decisions to require registration to
passively monitor a session via Meetecho but not the raw
audio feed, and that no registration is required to watch
a recording. Note that this is *not* an argument in favor of
requiring registration for access to archived material, but
that the registration requirement should be restricted to the
mike queue (although that raises the question of what to do
about questions relayed via Jabber).
As a frequent remote participant I'm very, very happy to see
that there's been progress on improving tools for allowing
remote participants to be more active during a session, but
as always seems to happen, the details are messy.
Melinda
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature