On 17 Jul 2017, at 11:08 pm, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
* Precisely because the IETF has some very large vendors among
its supporters, our being able to continue to claim that we are
not biased toward those vendors and that our standards decisions
are not for sale, we need to be careful about not forcing people
to contribute to the bottom line of those companies in order to
participate.
How does linking to social media accounts constitute "forcing people... in
order to participate"?
No one is suggesting that one be required to tweet in order to register an
objection.
We've been reasonably careful (much more careful
than some other SDOs) to not require someone to purchase some
particular work processing package or office suite to
participate. I suggest that, if the IETF is going to get tied
up with Social Media, the system(s) used must be ones that do
not have business models involving "user as product", targeted
advertising to users, permission to spam users, or requirements
that users give up significant privacy in order to join, get
feeds. or equ9ivalent.
You seem to be making a pretty big leap from "we don't require you to use
proprietary tools in order to participate" (something that I very much agree
with) to "we don't even want the *appearance* of (very) indirect endorsement of
large companies."
I could understand a complaint that (for example) Sina Weibo isn't in that
list, but banning all such links seems to ignore how much of the Internet is
used today -- which isn't such a good look for the body that purports to
oversee the Internet's protocols.
Again, if someone wants to re-{post,
chirp, tweet, vomit, etc.} materials from an IETF mailing list,
I think we have always allowed thet. However, IMO, the IETF
needs to be really careful about getting more directly involved.
I'm not sure why you bring that up; how would we stop it?
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/