On 3/31/16 11:55 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 3/31/16 10:29 AM, John C Klensin wrote: >> A registration requirement for remote participants is a major >> policy change and one for people who merely want to passively >> observe is something I believe the community has several times >> concluded is inappropriate given privacy, etc., concerns. > > Yes, and inconsistent with the recent apparent consensus that > someone will be whitelisted for all IETF mailing lists if they're > signed up for any. in my decade or so of moderating ietf mailing lists... The overwhelming source of whitelist additions was people using multiple accounts. and or people sending stuff to lists to which they aren't subscribed e.g. the iesg. neither case leaves much to the imagination > I do think there ought to be registration for people who are > active participants and who may influence outcomes - there are > tradeoffs around accountability and privacy that kick in in > that circumstance. I don't think those tradeoffs apply to > merely consuming information. > > In particular, I think it's weird and represents somewhat > incoherent engineering decisions to require registration to > passively monitor a session via Meetecho but not the raw > audio feed, and that no registration is required to watch > a recording. Note that this is *not* an argument in favor of > requiring registration for access to archived material, but > that the registration requirement should be restricted to the > mike queue (although that raises the question of what to do > about questions relayed via Jabber). > > As a frequent remote participant I'm very, very happy to see > that there's been progress on improving tools for allowing > remote participants to be more active during a session, but > as always seems to happen, the details are messy. > > Melinda > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature