Howdy,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:56 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
And the decision by the IESG on the timing of the interim will have an impact on registration and thus on revenue; clearly the two groups (LLC and IESG) should talk to each other (and the wisdom of having an IESG appointed member to ensure that is pretty evident).
But somebody has to be the stuckee for the decision on the money side of that, and at the moment it is the LLC. Having been on the IESG before the IASA process, when the IESG did all of that, I will personal object to any effort to shove that level of decision back on the IESG plate. The money side moved onto a different set of plates for darn good reasons, and it shouldn't move back.
Things were pretty plain on IETF 107: the IESG decided to cancel the meeting when it was no longer going to be an effective meeting (standards issue), but the logistics of financing stayed with the LLC.
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.)
The LLC is not a separate body from the IETF--it's the part of the leadership with this set of responsibilities. Like the rest of the IETF, there are times when their role requires public consultation and an assessment of consensus. I hope you'll both trust them to do that right and recognize that if we give them the responsibility for that job, we ought to give them the relevant authority..
regards,
Ted
Cheers,
S.
