If that is your only question, you are doing better than I. I can see a
myriad questions that we are going to need to answer. Some of them
urgent, some not.
I suspect that the key to the answer to the question you chose lies in
how we end up treating them. But that is just a guess.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/2/2020 8:02 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
So I am struggling with just one question here ...
What is the practical difference for standards development of formal
IETF WG meeting with fee vs a WG interim meeting with no fee using zoom
or google meet ?
Kind regards,
Robert.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:58 AM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I'm pretty sure that many folks would expect a decision to change the
date of the meeting drastically would itself require rough consensus.
So we would ahve the same debate about that. And about ....
Yes, the long term policy needs to be set by the community. The IESG
has been trying to start those discussions. Whether they have been
trying hard enough is a topic I presume we can disagree about. I
commented to someone privately earlier in this discussion that I
expected it would take at least 6 months to arrive at a rough consensus
on policies for these issues. At taht, i expect I am being optimistic.
Process and policy discussions in the IETF tend to bifurcate into two
strong positions and a lot of folks staring in confusion. Which does
not lead to decisions.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/2/2020 7:50 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > I do not see how the LLC could reasonably have asked for input
for this
> > meeting in time to be useful.
>
> And would the world collapse if we would push IETF 108 a month or
two
> forward ? What's up with the rush ?
>
> Charging for remote participation flat fee IMO is a very bad
move. If
> someone like to attend just one meeting online why would she or
he be
> forced to pay the same as someone attending 20 meetings ?
>
> All it will result with is further limiting participation and only
> supporting marketing focused groups to join. Do we really want
IETF to
> be a yet one more marketing venue ?
>
> Rgs,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 1:26 AM Joel M. Halpern
<jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>
> I assume that the to determine the long term policy on
charging for
> remote participation at various kinds of meetings, rough
consensus
> would
> be gathered on the SHMO list, and then confirmed on the IETF
list with
> the IETF Chair judging rough consensus. Then, in line with Jay's
> frequent description of the LLC operation, the LLC will
follow the
> community guidance.
>
> I do not see how the LLC could reasonably have asked for
input for this
> meeting in time to be useful. As someone else mentioned,
asking for
> input and then saying "sorry, we know the discussion is still
going on
> but we have to act" would probably have been even worse.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 6/2/2020 7:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Another point. Ted wrote:
> >
> >> I think the LLC can call consensus on a matter within their
> remit (just as
> >> the IAOC evaluated the feedback on the registration date
change
> policy that
> >> I referenced many messages ago)
> >
> > The IAOC was a community-appointed body. The IETF ExecD is
not.
> When it comes to evaluating community consensus, that's a big
> difference of principle.
> >
> > Regards
> > Brian
> >
> > On 03-Jun-20 10:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> On 03-Jun-20 10:11, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:56 PM Stephen Farrell
> <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>>
> <mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
> <mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 02/06/2020 22:41, Ted Hardie wrote:
> >>> > And you are convincing me that attempting to
settle it
> on the IETF list
> >>> > will require somebody to judge consensus, since there
> look to be a minimum
> >>> > of two people with the time and keyboards
available to
> disagree. We
> >>> > apparently, however, disagree on who that should be.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps not! If you do agree that consensus calling is
> >>> required that seems to imply the LLC is not the one to
> >>> do that. We have a bunch of 14 victims already setup
> >>> to do just that:-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think the LLC can call consensus on a matter within their
> remit (just as the IAOC evaluated the feedback on the
registration
> date change policy that I referenced many messages ago). So, I
> think they are the victims set up to do that in this case.
> >>
> >> It's a change to the openness of the standards process,
> unprecedented since we first started multicasting the audio
for free
> back in the early 1990s. BCP101 defines the LLC's scope:
> >>
> >> "The IETF LLC is established to provide administrative
support
> to the IETF. It has no authority over the standards development
> activities of the IETF."
> >>
> >> There's no doubt that the IETF Executive Director *sets* the
> fees, but IMHO that isn't the point at issue. In this text:
> >> "The IETF Executive Director sets those meeting fees, in
> consultation with other IETF LLC staff and the IETF
community, with
> approval by the IETF LLC Board."
> >> I don't see any indication of how the ExecD knows the
result of
> consulting the community when there is disagreement. The
mechanism
> we have for that is the IESG determining the rough consensus.
I can
> see nothing in BCP101 that gives the ExecD the power to
determine IETF
> >> consensus, although it does require the LLC to respect IETF
> consensus. Those are two different things.
> >>
> >> Maybe this is a tiny gap in RFC8711, where Ted and
(Stephen + I)
> have different interpretations.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Brian
> >>
> >>> Since you referenced the magic number 14, I conclude we
still
> disagree.
> >>>
> >>> I think we do agree that there should be public
discussion. I
> think we do agree that the LLC and IESG should talk to each other
> about the implications of different strategies to both the
ongoing
> work of the IETF and its financial future. I think we do
agree that
> any conclusion would be revisited in the light of evidence of
how it
> ends up working.
> >>>
> >>> But our disagreement on on who the stuckee is remains.
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> Ted
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> S.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
