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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 08:26:51PM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> You’re the one proposing a change - why is the onus for providing evidence on me of all people?

I was merely asking if you can provide support/evidence/example for your argument or not.

And whether or not IAB is seen as being something that works well or not has AFAIK
not even been asked in community feedbacks.

Cheers
    Toerless

> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> > On 5 May 2023, at 8:02 pm, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks, Mark
> > 
> >> On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 03:54:44PM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> -1. I think the IAB has the balance right. 
> >> 
> >> Recordings will make people speak less freely, and that’s a bad outcome. 
> > 
> > You provide no evidence for this argument. You do not counter my argument that
> > IETF and IRTF are operating IMHO quite successfully with full public recordings of
> > most, if not all meetings.
> > 
> > Cheers
> >    Toerless
> > 
> >> 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
> > 
> > -- 
> > ---
> > [e-mail]

-- 
---
[e-mail]