> On 1 Jun 2020, at 17:44, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Having read the survey results and having been suggesting for > many years that remote participants (note participants, not > observers/lurkers) should be charged at least a nominal fee, I > agree with all of those who have said that charging something is > reasonable. I have three concerns that are, in increasing > order of importance below. While not trivial, I hope that > neither of the first two become a distraction. .... > (3) While I note that almost every posting since Melinda's > comments excerpted below has concentrated on the fees, I think > she has identified the important issue. We continue to claim > that decisions are made --not just checked or last-called -- on > mailing lists, but that seems factually to have become less true > in recent years. Like her, I believe that the trend may be > irreversible at this point. However, unless there is some plan > to try to at least partially mitigate the effects of that > change, I think it is important that we recognize and make > adjustments for, not only the incoherency and inconsistencies > she points out, but the changes that dilute the "decisions on > mailing lists" principle. We should also recognize that > diluting that principle inevitably has negative effects on the > diversity of experience and expertise -- not just demographic > diversity although there might be effects there too-- that end > up being represented in IETF decision-making. One of the key results of the survey was that time zones are hard, and make scheduling calls to be inclusive very difficult. I’m not sure mailing lists are necessarily still the right technology, but I do hope that manycouches, and related discussions, will include a focus on effective asynchronous collaboration, and that we won’t fall by default into the mode of endless teleconferences at unsociable hours. Colin
