> On 17 Jul 2017, at 11:08 pm, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Precisely because the IETF has some very large vendors among
> its supporters, our being able to continue to claim that we are
> not biased toward those vendors and that our standards decisions
> are not for sale, we need to be careful about not forcing people
> to contribute to the bottom line of those companies in order to
> participate.
How does linking to social media accounts constitute "forcing people... in order to participate"?
No one is suggesting that one be required to tweet in order to register an objection.
> We've been reasonably careful (much more careful
> than some other SDOs) to not require someone to purchase some
> particular work processing package or office suite to
> participate. I suggest that, if the IETF is going to get tied
> up with Social Media, the system(s) used must be ones that do
> not have business models involving "user as product", targeted
> advertising to users, permission to spam users, or requirements
> that users give up significant privacy in order to join, get
> feeds. or equ9ivalent.
You seem to be making a pretty big leap from "we don't require you to use proprietary tools in order to participate" (something that I very much agree with) to "we don't even want the *appearance* of (very) indirect endorsement of large companies."
I could understand a complaint that (for example) Sina Weibo isn't in that list, but banning all such links seems to ignore how much of the Internet is used today -- which isn't such a good look for the body that purports to oversee the Internet's protocols.
> Again, if someone wants to re-{post,
> chirp, tweet, vomit, etc.} materials from an IETF mailing list,
> I think we have always allowed thet. However, IMO, the IETF
> needs to be really careful about getting more directly involved.
I'm not sure why you bring that up; how would we stop it?
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/