On Sunday, 7 November, the secretariat announced to the 79all list:
Please note that you will need to wear your badge at all times
during the meeting to gain access to the various meeting rooms.
Onsite security will be here to verify that only registered
attendees are allowed access to meeting sessions.
At the IAOC open mike yesterday, I observed that the above
announcement was made with no explanation, with no advance warning,
and with no opportunity for community input. I also observed that it
is a change in practice. I expressed concerns about process and
transparency, not about whether we should have badge police -- let's
leave that conversation for another day.
The IAOC offered four explanations at the plenary:
1) There's an RFC that requires us to wear badges.
2) Badges have been checked occasionally in the past, usually in
terminal rooms.
3) We've had past problems with equipment disappearing, and
4) "The local host requires ... checking the people in the meeting
areas who are registered for the meeting". (Point 4 verbatim from
the transcript.)
Having pondered the IAOC's answers, I find that I am still confused
and I remain concerned about the process. Specific follow-up
questions are below.
The first two answers are not on point: we do not have badge police on
working group rooms at a normal IETF meeting[1].
The third answer does not justify a last-minute, unexplained change in
practice: if we were concerned about theft, we could have said that
months ago, just as we announced the network authentication changes.
We could even have asked the community how much it cares and whether
this is an acceptable solution.
Which brings us to answer four: the local host imposed a requirement
on us.
That seems notably at odds with answer three. Which is accurate?
Was this an IAOC/IETF action that could have been explained in
advance, or was this a unilateral requirement from the host?
If it is the former, why did the IAOC think this was an acceptable
change to make at the last minute, with no explanation and no
consultation? If the latter, why is the IAOC allowing the host to
dictate such details of our meeting operations, particularly without
any form of explanation or advance warning?
In either case, I call on both the IAOC and the local host to tell the
guards to back off. Let's have a normal meeting (or what remains of
it), as the IAOC assured us we would.
-- Sam Weiler, paid IETF79 attendee
[1] Indeed, I'm not sure we have ever had badge police on the meeting
rooms (v. the terminal room). No specific example was offered last
night, nor do I remember one from my experience in the IETF.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf