Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 01 April 2016 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B628C12D0FC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 03:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yU-wwamsK6HM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 03:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 192C712D0EA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 03:12:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7EC3BE39; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:12:54 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5BP1EdvcItHZ; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:12:53 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.49.100] (unknown [86.46.30.32]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 227B9BE3F; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:12:50 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1459505570; bh=u9Briv4GyYLIPLVDf6bSjfvpFK01aRyTeNAkFN0l4IQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=0NzjTEG6VNviKyapfhIB5nSMPLOGImm85klkUzRoZQnKxAdoOk+ctXuegPLrjwgxQ qVmxa118adQ9EKLaYJti5NkqowdQMjHy/l7IhPic0YKA8/uyboCPpA6xHwtUESruv6 5A41FFrafjlsb0tazvRCbbWnEUEx1LigCAt+JKlc=
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160330202243.4795.63685.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56FC7167.4010409@nomountain.net> <A4B09E64B56CD0B8C4379A99@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <b982c83c-7de7-516e-11be-0fe7522a93ed@bogus.com> <4C79795B5F7E7C8345C9DC31@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <56FE49A1.2030607@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:12:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4C79795B5F7E7C8345C9DC31@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms080704060108090101080905"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KOQRu36qBdl2KJfqa9ebe8YMbmQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2016 10:12:57 -0000

John,

On 01/04/16 01:28, John C Klensin wrote:
> However, I think
> there has been a significant breach of community norms and
> expectations about openness, consultation, and transparence. 

I agree that requiring registration of remote attendees
without having announced that was a mistake.

I agree with those who've said that it might be reasonable
to require remote attendees who want to be in the meetecho
queue-thing to have registered. But even so, that ought be
a thing gets announced ahead of time. Personally I doubt
that such registration is really needed even for the queue
thing, but I'm willing to believe there may be an anti-DoS
benefit there somewhere. That one can ask questions in the
jabber room without registering for the IETF meeting is IMO
just fine.)

So yeah, I think someone (I dunno who) made a mistake. I
expect it's not fixable for this meeting, but can be fixed
for next time.

Having an easier registration experience for those who do
want to register as remote attendees is also something to
fix.

>  I
> also don't know if that failure was by "the community selected
> committee members" or if some staff member is making decisions
> without adequate supervision, but it is a problem either way and
> I hope that whomever is involved will take the situation
> seriously, explain the source or reason for the disconnect to
> the community, and evaluate (along with the community) whether
> they really want to do whatever job they are doing.

That last is just over-reaction and nowhere near justified. I
figure someone made a smallish mistake, nobody died, it can be
and will be fixed. IMO taking the situation seriously requires
us to not over-react in such ways.

Cheers,
S.