Hi John,
At 07:15 AM 27-07-2022, John C Klensin wrote:
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?
There was a consultation by the IESG (Thanks Andy for the pointer to
the archives). The explanation for the change (and other changes)
was demographics. It is very difficult to argue against that given
that number of remote participants or observers was insignificant
prior to the era of travel restrictions.
The IETF resisted changing its IETF revenue and voting models for
well over a decade. Over that period, there were experiments, e.g.
the day pass experiment, which did not follow a formal decision
process. Nowadays, the IETF revenue model is different as there is a
charge for remote participating. That obviously requires giving
those participants voting rights (also known as NomCom eligibility).
I forgot why unregistered Observer mode was dropped. It's unlikely
that it was because of IPR policy. That policy only comes into play
when the individual takes an action which could influence
standardization. Otherwise, the individual is considered as
observing the standardization process.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
