Jari,
Many thanks, both for your note generally and for the request to
undo the registration requirement for this meeting if that is
possible. Given that and as the person whose outrage at the
situation touched off these threads, I'd like to suggest that we
dial back the discussion now and trust Jari (and, as
appropriate, Tobias) to organize a more focused discussion as
soon as they consider appropriate and feasible.
Unfortunately, it sometimes does require a mistake and
mini-crisis to bring fundamental issues to the front of the
queue.
thanks again,
john
--On Friday, April 01, 2016 13:12 -0300 Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
For what it is worth, I do think changing the registration
requirement without discussion or even an announcement was a
mistake. I'm sorry.
I do have a personal opinion in this topic, and it is that
just like in the physical meeting, I mostly want to know who I
am talking to. That shouldn't be a hard requirement,
however, just like it isn't in, say, list discussion. And I
certainly agree that when you are only observing there's
even less requirement to do so. However, this is a complex
matter involving, for instance, IPR, note wells, ability to
get feedback from participants, understand who participates in
the IETF, possibly an evolving IETF meeting fee model (see
draft-arkko-ietf-trends-and-observations), privacy, and
probably a few other aspects as well.
I think we should have that discussion (again, but the world
is evolving), and see where we end up. And the above was just
my opinion, I'm sure we'll have other opinions.
In the meantime (and with most of my leadership team members
on airplanes), I've asked if we can change the requirement
to a recommendation, and no longer require registration.
Meetecho is working on it. Also, the secretariat is changing
the registration page so that it doesn't ask unnecessary
questions from remote participants from those that want to
register.
Overall IAOC transparency question is worth another thread, I
think.
Jari