On 01/04/16 09:25, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:29:15PM -0400, 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. So,
who made this decision and how? Unless the answer involves a
community discussion and Last Call or equivalent process that I
missed (and apparently Melinda did too), if the answer to "who
decided" involves anyone in the IETF Leadership, would they
please offer to resign?
I strongly concur. Nobody should have to surrender *any* form
of personal identification merely to passively observe.
---rsk
Dear rsk and John,
please excuse my brevity, as I am currently in transit to BA with only
very limited Internet. So I will need to answer in more detail later.
At first to the question who is responsible: as the chair of the IAOC,
in the end I am responsible for the actions of the IAOC which includes
the implementation of the registration for Meetecho (all other remote
participation tools do not require registration). But I hope you will
allow for some conversations before you call for my head.
As you know over the last few years, we have made great strides in
enhancing the remote participation capability to give remote attendees a
full mirror of local attendees, to a level where you can have full
active attendance through meetecho, incl. remote presentations,
comments, questions and so on. With the goal to allow full active remote
participation capabilities mirroring what we have now for the people who
attend in person. Is it perfect yet, no, but we are moving towards that
goal.
The registration of _active_ remote participants has been discussed
within the IAOC for operational purposes and also to mirror the existing
IETF process for remote contributions. However, it was not clear when
this would be feasible from a technical standpoint.
I admit that the current implementation is not as as intended and in
fact while voicing the intent we did not know when in the timeframe of
2016 - 2018 it would be possible. And it would have been good to consult
the community beforehand we execute this step. In some ways our
operations team did move on the intent a bit faster than expected for
Meetecho, which can also be considered my fault as I did not explicitly
halt them and require and spell out the process to do before we take
this step and did not push for explicitly mandate strong testing of the
interface before it goes live.
Once I arrive in Buenos Aires, I will review the situation with our IAD
and the Meetecho team about what they implemented the last few days.
To rsk's comment: please understand that the registration intent is for
active remote participants. All standalone audio streams are still
available during sessions. I understand that the current implementation
for the Meetecho registration may deviate from the intent to sign-up the
active remote participants. I will need to talk with the Meetecho and
operations team to understand the scope.
I shall come back to you on all the details as soon as I arrive in
Buenos Aires and get a chance to discuss with our tech teams.
I apologies for any inconveniences and will be looking forward to seeing
you all in BA.
Best regards, Tobias (IAOC chair)