Hi John There was a long conversation roughly two years ago on manycouches and tools-discuss about discontinuing the live audio streams, and while you mentioned privacy in passing in that discussion, there was no reference to this being a consensus requirement. The general feeling of those participating was that a) audio streams and jabber were sufficient for anonymous participation; and b) fee waivers handled the issues of exclusion, and so the audio streams were retained and enhanced. Like Lars I would like a reference to the consensus agreement that you mention as it would help all of us involved in meeting planning to understand what the requirements are. It sounds to me as if the answer to your whole last paragraph is that this consensus was somehow 'lost' and so nobody was aware they were not honouring it, assuming that consensus is how you remember it. Finally, just to note that the Plenary is always livestreamed on YouTube, with no delay: https://www.ietf.org/live/ietf114-plenary/ Jay > On 27 Jul 2022, at 10:15, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-director@xxxxxxxx
