Moving to ietf@xxxxxxxx, since I think this is not in any way specific
to Berlin.
On 8/2/13 12:24, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
In rtcweb we have remote participants that prefer anonymity for a number of reasons.
I'm going to make a broad assumption that the "number of reasons" all
relate to privacy. If that is incorrect, please weigh in.
The question is how this is handled in regards to note well, when they want jabber scribes to relay opinions or proposals to the meeting.
Just a note for the future. I think we should allow anonymous listeners, but should they really be allowed to participate?
We had a previous conversation around pseudonyms, which I think
concluded that pseudonyms are pretty much okay (and impossible to
reliably detect anyway).
Given this fact, someone can protect their identity through use of a
consistent pseudonym. This has the property of developing a persona
behind that pseudonym that the working group members can reasonably
interact with.
By contrast, attempting to participate in a truly anonymous fashion
rather than participating with a pseudonym seems to have very little
justification, with significant potential drawback for the working
group. The privacy implications are pretty much identical, but it
provides the illusion that one can act in a way that has no impact on a
persona's reputation. IMHO, this is ripe for bad behavior, bad faith
participation, and other abuses.
Given the availability of pseudonymous participation, I don't think we
need to tolerate anonymous participation.
/a