AB, saving your entire message for context ... You're fixing the wrong problem. The problem is not finding a way to cloak so some unspecified person doesn't experience abuse. It's important that we all know who we are dealing with. The problem, rather, is what is leading you to think anonymity might be useful, i.e. the alleged abuse itself. Scott On 08/03/13 02:41, Abdussalam Baryun allegedly wrote: > Hi Adam, > > I don't agree with you. I am a remote participant (2 years and never > attended meetings) in the IETF organisation, do you think that IETF is > fare in treating remote participants? I think the current IETF > direction is in favor of attended-meeting participants, so IMHO one > reason of some hidding their name is because the IETF still is not yet > able to control wrong behaviour of participants who think they are > well known. Thoes wrong behavior abuse peoples rights in IETF. If some > are well known, the reason is because they got better opportunity in > going to meetings, or that majority of participants are from two > regions (North America+Europe). > > For me the IETF reputation is about 40% (evaluated by asking close > friends that did not participate and including the way I was treated > within 2 years), still needs more work to build its reputation (e.g. I > think some old participants need guidance to IETF visions). For me > participants' good reputation depend on their reactions: if I get a > nice reply from them, or if they don't only respond to known people, > or if they acknowledge efforts, or if they encourage other into IETF > visions, or if they provide good ideas/inputs, or if they manage > work/WG/IETF well, etc. > > In IETF volunteers' reputations SHOULD always be high and respected, > but seems like the IETF give chance for abuse so its reputation makes > some people prefer to be anonymous so they try to save their self > reputation. We in IETF SHOULD not focus on people's reputation, we > SHOULD focus on ideas, reasons, work-quality, documents/RFCs > reputations and process-procedures reputations. We are here to > document IETF reputation but not to document a person reputation or > even his/her name. A person's name for me is only important when I > want to refer to his/her review, draft, idea, etc. Don't forget that > in procedure; any input into IETF is own also by IETF no matter what > was the name given, so bad behaviour makes IETF reputation bad and > then some people leave, or make anonymous names, or don't participate > just listen. IMO, the majority of subscribers (in WGs) are listeners > with zero participation. > > AB > > On 8/2/13, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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 >> >>