Howdy,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 7:13 AM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hiya,
On 02/06/2020 13:57, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Moreover, as Jason points out, the IETF has charged attendance fees for
> some time, so one could view this as a decision to *reduce* fees, in light
> of the virtual status.
While I think having the discussion in the context of
IETF109 and future meetings is ok, I don't think the
above is even close to correct. A change from zero to
non-zero cost is a policy change and not IMO within
the LLC's power to decide, except in an emergency case
as seems to still be the case for IETF108.
I think "policy change" might be true, thought I think we disagree on the level of that change. I am sure we disagree, though, with the implication that it is outside the purview of the IETF LLC to make that change.
To illustrate what I mean, I'd like to look first at two different changes. The IETF requiring registration to use the facilities for remote participation was a policy change for the standards process, because it formalized the understanding that those participants are part of the standards making bits when they're engaged in the meeting (thus subject to note well and our other policies). I think it was an appropriate change, because the facilities permitted contributions, rather than simply allowing folks to listen in (as multicast audio had before). Because it is at its core a standards process issue, having the IESG in the thick of that decision made sense. That's their remit.
On the far side of that were the changes that the IAOC brought in in 2018 when Andrew was chair, to change the timing of "early bird" and "standard" registrations. There is no change in the status of those registrations as a result, just a change in when you pay to get different discounts. The IAOC put forward a draft policy and requested community feedback on it, then implemented the change. That was their remit--how and when to collect the fees.
The IETF LLC, as the successor the IAOC in the IASA seat, has a similar remit. It has to set both the per meeting fee and the timing of collection. You appear to be arguing that moving from zero to any number for a particular class of participants effectively excludes some of those participants from the standards process and because that would be a standards process change, that would pull it from their bailiwick. But zero isn't a magic number here. Had they moved it to $1, would those people be excluded? Had they moved it to €2, would those people be excluded here? How about 10 of the lowest denomination currency for the home country of the participant? The reality is that it's a balance between finding the number that enables the standards process to run effectively and the number that enables the organization to continue to house the standards process. It's always been that balance and there are a host of choices (e.g. the currency in which to accept registrations) which effect it. And it has been the IASA folks (currently, the LLC) who have to make the choices of where to put the balance.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a public process for feedback and input; just like the changes that Andrew put forward in 2018, there should be public discussion of a draft plan. I'm sure any implementation of the plan will also get analyzed post-facto and changes made in light of the lessons learned. But it is, at least at the moment, the LLC who are supposed to take that feedback and learn those lessons. They are the stuckees for this type of decision, and they are charged with making it with the health of the whole organization in mind. We gave that body those responsibilities, and this decision goes along with that.
That's my take on it any case,
regards,
Ted Hardie
Cheers,
S.
