----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Chown tjc.ietf@xxxxxxxxx Sent: 04/06/2020 13:28:44 > On 2 Jun 2020, at 22:25, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hiya, > > I think this bit is where our disagreement is most clear: > > On 02/06/2020 22:16, Ted Hardie wrote: >> But somebody has to be the stuckee for the decision on the money side of >> that, and at the moment it is the LLC. > > The move from zero to non-zero is not "on the money > side" as the status-quo involves no fee. (Ignoring > the exception that will be IETF108.) > > FWIW, this discussion is convincing me more that > the LLC definitely ought not be setting such policies. I agree with this, though the IESG may have come to the same conclusion if tasked to consider the matter. As it stands, WG chairs can presumably schedule interims in place of a slot at IETF 108, if they wish to maximise virtual participation, and avoid clashes with other IETF 108 sessions that may draw important contributors away.. <tp> I saw a discussion on a WG list yesterday which I would characterise as In person meeting; Cost thousands; Timing chosen to suit others Virtual meeting; Cost hundreds; Timing chosen to suit others Virtual interim; Cost negligible; Timing chosen to suit us which makes me wonder if there will be an increase in requests for Virtual interim, And if they are constrained, will there be an increase in Webex? Tom Petch --- New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: https://www.oeclassic.com/ Tim
