--On Friday, June 5, 2020 11:30 -0400 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > (More generally, and not in reference to Bob's message in > particular, I'm a little surprised at the degree to which the > community wants to manage the LLC on this topic, given the > oft-expressed concern during the IASA reform work that the > community tended to try to involve itself in details that were > really properly a staff question.) I want to respond to that comment and that comment alone. I can't speak for others and wouldn't try, but I've been trying to make and preserve an important distinction that the comment above may obscure. My understanding of the LLC and the IASA2 documents has been that the LLC is not permitted to make decisions that change the standards process (or who can participate in it) at least in non-trivial ways. Such decisions have to be made by the community, using ordinary IETF procedures in ordinary ways. I also don't believe there is anything in the LLC documents that permits the LLC, or its contractors or appointees, to say "this is an emergency and hence we get to make changes to the standards process especially if those are just consequences of other decisions". So, as examples, (1) The IETF has had a practice (I'd claim a principle) that people are allowed to observe sessions in real time, without identifying themselves or paying a fee, since "observe" meant audio-only and multicast. Some of us (maybe very few) believe the availability of that option is key to perceptions of the IETF being open and key to both the standards process and its credibility. Does the LLC get to say "for all-remote meetings generally, or at least for IETF 108, we are charging for remote participation and anyone who wants to observe anonymously just has to wait for the YouTube videos" and to do so without community discussion of the issues and tradeoffs? I think that violates their charter and authority. YMMD. (2) The IETF has never charged for active remote participation, even when someone remote was asking questions via Jabber (or its predecessors) or having audio (and sometimes video) piped into the room so they could present. Some people clearly think that is as much as a principle (and as important to the standards process) as the above. I don't (for reasons that are outside the scope of this note), but there is certainly enough of a question there that the decision to charge, without community discussion, seems like having a discussion about appropriateness is reasonable. I think there are also examples on the other side of the boundary I'm trying to describe. If things were "normal" and the LLC were to decide to charge extra for cookies rather than including them in the registration fee or to offer a discount on registration for anyone who did not want a tee-shirt, I'd be very concerned if the IETF felt a need to get involved in those decisions and even more concerned if there were quibbling about the amounts. I would feel much the same way if we were having a debate about whether the minimum registration fee for IETF 108 should be $100, $230, or $400. In all of those cases, I think the community would be within its rights to insist, as a matter of accountability, on explanations of why particular numbers were chosen, but that is different from debating the precise values of the numbers, "managing the LLC", or trying to involve itself in details that are properly staff functions. Just my opinion. best, john
