[arch-d] public recordings of IAB meetings or not - Re: [IAB] IAB Technical Discussion on Fragmentation: 2023-05-03

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Wes

The one thing i did not understand from the public thread and which Mirja explained in
PM to me afterwards was that the non-publishing of the recording was the standing expectation
of the participants at the start of the meeting and that it could thus not be changed
afterwards. That's fine, although i have also seen cases where such reversals where
done, for example by asking the active speaking participants for permission to publish.

More importantly though, i would appreciate IAB to reconsider its policy on whether
or not to publish the public part of work meetings in the future. I have heard the
argument that public recordings would negatively impact the work, but i have not read any
convincing examples why. I can think of one or two negatives myselfes, but i think
they'd be outstripped by the positives.

What makes IAB work so special that it should not follow the
public recording standards that we have for all our WG meetings - at IETF meetings
and more and more on every interim - by mere reason of meetecho making it automatic.
Sure, there may be more (for many) boring procedural work in IAB, but "we don't want to have
public recordings of boring bits of otherwise public meetings" can not be the argument.

I for once will claim that IABs standing in the IETF community could well
improve if public recordings where available:

AFAIK, there is very little listening in to IAB meetings by non-IAB members,
and maybe it could help for IAB work to become better known, understood and
discussed in the IETF if there was more listening. But IETF participants typically
have a life and sometimes even jobs, and can not or do not want to make time at those
IAB work slots - but listen to selected parts at their own convenience.
Timezones play a big role as well. I for once always wished i could go
back an listen to IESG/IAB recordings when forming NomCom feedback. 

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 03:18:18PM -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > Too bad. Isn't the organization such that some first part of the meetings
> > is considered public and only the second part IAB private ?
> 
> 
> Mirja has already responded about the purpose behind the meetings
> (essentially: to inform the IAB and prompt IAB discussions) and the purpose
> behind advertising them more widely for people that want to obverse them
> (they've always been publicly announced on the IAB agenda page, but others
> have said they missed ones they'd be interested in attending).
> 
> But I did want to call out one point above: very little of the IAB meetings
> are private.  You're just as welcome to come listen to our more
> administrative meetings (where we do often discuss what future items should
> go into the technical presentations).  The only time we generally dive into
> executive sessions is when discussing appointing individuals to roles that
> the IAB is responsible for making appointments (eg, liaison managers to
> other SDOs).  You're welcome to attend and listen to any of the meetings as
> observers, and this has been the case for at least 4 years and was trending
> toward that direction even longer I think.
> -- 
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI

-- 
---
[e-mail]