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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

-1. I think the IAB has the balance right. 

Pore through what they write and publish, not recordings of every utterance. Recordings will make people speak less freely, and that’s a bad outcome. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 5 May 2023, at 2:42 pm, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss