On 5/31/20 1:13 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I don't think the characterization of this as "pay-to-play" is accurate. You
> are certainly free to participate in mailing lists, github, etc.
I'm somewhat troubled by this, as well, tbh. To the extent that
the IETF has gradually and effectively moved to having decisions
made in meetings it would be unfortunate indeed to exclude
people based on financial circumstances. I'd like to see the
decision-making situation fixed but given the history of that
discussion I think we are where we are, and free remote participation
provides at least some mitigation. I also tend to think that
saying that meeting participation isn't necessary because {mailing
lists,Github,whatever} is incompatible with the insistence that
the IETF continue to meet because it's not really possible to
progress work without real-time discussion. I'll also note that
for as long as there's been a remote participation option available
it's been free. We're now in the odd position of having all-remote
meetings absorb what used to be "remote participants" into the
group of "participants," with some consequential side-effects
(although arguably there are no such things as side-effects, just
effects).
I do think this decision has some unintended consequences.
Scholarships or other subsidy might provide some mitigation
but would potentially be messy/awkward. The organization
is long overdue for some navel-gazing about working methods.
It's unreasonable to expect perfect consistency but I think
things have gotten a little more incoherent than they should
be.
Melinda
--
Melinda Shore
melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx
Software longa, hardware brevis
