On 01-Jun-20 15:00, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi, > >> On May 31, 2020, at 10:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 01-Jun-20 11:57, Stephen Farrell wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 31/05/2020 23:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> What troubles me is the lack of a debate in the community before this >>>> was announced with about a week's notice. >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> The lack of any community debate is very disappointing. >>> It doesn't matter if this is not intended as a precedent, >>> it will set a precedent. >> >> I wanted to add two things. >> >> 1. There's no complaint about the IETF LLC as far as I'm concerned. >> They're doing their job. >> >> 2. The announcement message about IETF 108 being on-line: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/kzC7M48oKrAwdh9uyOvseeKFW3A >> IMO really should have pre-announced and justified the intention >> to apply a fee, and that the decision is for one meeting only, so >> that we can have a community debate about long-term policy on this. > > We didn’t know on May 14 whether there would be a registration fee or what it would be, and we felt it was important to stick to the timeline that we had shared with the community as far as announcing the decision about conversion to an online meeting. Well understood that decisions had to be made in a hurry; but letting everybody know as much as possible, as soon as possible, has shown its advantages a lot during this pandemic (along with the disadvantages of hiding information). On the substance (and partly in response to SM) I know that participants have had to cover IETF meeting costs since 1992, and presumably longer, so I don't find this shocking. But for the longer term, we do need to think about how this interacts with the goal of "any interested person can participate in the work, know what is being decided, and make his or her voice heard" [RFC3935]. Regards Brian
