Hiya, On 02/06/2020 21:44, Ted Hardie wrote: > 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. No. I'm arguing that the move from zero to non-zero ought be an IESG decision, based on community discussion. That's not only because it might exclude people but also because such changes can have longer term and subtle effects. One already pointed out on the wg chairs list is that this may create an incentive to have virtual interims for WGs outside the IETF meeting week, as those don't have a fee. That could be good, bad or indifferent in terms of the standards process. To be clear: I'm not now arguing that remote participation ought not have a fee. I might make that argument later in a discussion about policy for IETF109 and beyond but my argument here is solely about who gets to set the policy. I do not believe that ought be the LLC. (But can live with IETF108 as an exception.) Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
