I have used Meetecho as John mentioned, and yesterday I could not, just as John mentioned. I did use slides and audio because that was all that was available. I prefer having both audio and video and was annoyed that it was no longer an option. Seemed capricious. Therefore, +1. -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Lou Berger Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 9:42 AM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Meetecho observer logins and privacy FWIW - in the past, the audio stream provided the anonymous / observe rx-only channel (and posted slides would provide the content). On 7/27/2022 10:34 AM, pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > +1 > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 9:15 AM > To: iesg@xxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Meetecho observer logins and privacy > > Hi. > > In recent years, there has been an option for people to observe IETF > WG meetings, plenaries, etc., for which Meetecho is used without > identifying themselves with a Datatracker login. People taking > advantage of that option could, of course, not actively participate in > the sessions, get in the mic line, etc. That option no longer exists. > I gather the thinking is that, because videos are available on YouTube > with only a short delay, the option to observe in real time is no > longer necessary. For the overwhelming number of cases, that is almost certainly correct. > > However, my recollection is that the decision that is must be possible > to be an anonymous observer in real time was made, on privacy grounds, > after significant community discussion and IETF > consensus. IIR, some of that discussion included a sense that > disadvantaging such observers in any way was inconsistent with the > privacy principles the IETF was trying to promote. > > I hope we can avoid reopening the original discussion. However, we > normally take the position that a decision made by IETF consensus can > only be reversed by IETF consensus. AFAICT, the decision to remove > the anonymous observer functionality was made without any timely > announcement and opportunity for community comment. So... How was > this decision made and by what process? > Does the principle that decisions made by the community can only be > reversed by the community no longer apply in some cases and, if so, which ones? > > thanks, > john > >
