Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 01 April 2016 00:28 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 D8DAA12D925 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Qm-kse9MlWHM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81B0712D921 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1almwf-0005cp-4U; Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:28:13 -0400
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:28:08 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details
Message-ID: <4C79795B5F7E7C8345C9DC31@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <b982c83c-7de7-516e-11be-0fe7522a93ed@bogus.com>
References: <20160330202243.4795.63685.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56FC7167.4010409@nomountain.net> <A4B09E64B56CD0B8C4379A99@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <b982c83c-7de7-516e-11be-0fe7522a93ed@bogus.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/clWiXgshuNz93H8Rt9M0tD0hbEE>
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 00:28:21 -0000
--On Thursday, March 31, 2016 16:20 -0700 joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote: > On 3/31/16 11:29 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > >> A registration requirement for remote participants is a major >> policy change and one for people who merely want to passively >> observe is something I believe the community has several times >> concluded is inappropriate given privacy, etc., concerns. So, >> who made this decision and how? Unless the answer involves a >> community discussion and Last Call or equivalent process that >> I missed (and apparently Melinda did too), if the answer to >> "who decided" involves anyone in the IETF Leadership, would >> they please offer to resign? > > I think you are accusing the community selected committee > members of malfeasance. At least now we are clear on where we > stand. > > We have advanced No BCP or standards track document to describe > requirements or procedures for the operation of remote > participation nor should we IMHO unless: > > We view it as a core function of the IETF activiity. > > It is mature enough that the thing we describe is neither > obsoleted or overtaken by events or at least is not focused on > the technology and method of delivery before the document is > published. Joel, We aren't talking about the "technology or method of delivery" for remote participation. AFAICT, I raised two issues, neither of which was about that. The issues were: (1) The unexpected decision to impose a registration requirement on remote participants. I would believe there should have been at least an announcement but otherwise that it was not a big deal had there not been extensive discussion in the community about the possibility of asking some or all remote attendees to register. I think the clear conclusion from those discussions was "no" (and I was on the losing side, so I'm not trying to back anyone into or out of a policy I like here). That was "no, it is not a core function", "no, it raises too many privacy issues", and "no, there is no need to do it". In general, if the community has a discussion that concludes with either "don't do that" or "needs more thought", there is an expectation that it won't be done without reopening the discussion or making a clear statement as to why the change was needed. Neither of those occurred, at least as far as I can tell. I've said nothing about malfeasance, nor do I believe there is any evidence of evil intentions. However, I think there has been a significant breach of community norms and expectations about openness, consultation, and transparence. 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. (2) There are some almost-unrelated issues about how remote participation information is presented and made available and about remote access to, e.g., Sunday tutorials. Those topics are old news but there is some question about why we are having to discuss them, or scrambling around to fix them, a few days before IETF sessions begin. That seems important to me not only because we've had these discussions fairy regularly but also because, IMO, things were getting steadily better for some time but we now seem to have reversed course and gotten a little too relaxed again. Again, I think the community is entitled to know who bears the responsibility for having such things under control and how the apparent lapses this time occurred. That isn't a claim of malfeasance either, although it is possible that there are some issues of non-feasance. best john
- Re: Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho De… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho De… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho De… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [95all] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Mee… Mauricio Esteban
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Ray Pelletier
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Lucy Lynch
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… joel jaeggli
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Melinda Shore
- Re: Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho De… SM
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… joel jaeggli
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IE… Stephen Farrell