Fully agree with Stephen on this. It's very clear to me that a *permanent* change to charging for remote listening to meetings, and for remote speaking in meetings, is a fundamental change of standards-making policy and it's clear to me that consensus on such a change has to be called by the same mechanism as a change to RFC2026, i.e. by the IESG. It also seems clear that the LLC has a part to play in the discussion, such as laying out the facts of life (remote meetings cost money). Once the principle is decided, it seems like the LLC's job to set the level of the fees. Regards Brian On 03-Jun-20 08:55, Stephen Farrell 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. > > 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. > >
