Hiya, Thanks for the reconsideration. Gotta say I remain a bit puzzled though... On 09/06/2020 23:31, Jay Daley wrote: > I understand the view that we should be using an honor system and > seeing if that fails us first, and that was considered but the risk > of doing that was seen as too great. Risk to what? The only relevant risks I can envisage are either to revenue or control. You said it wasn't the former and the latter is not the LLC's thing. So I'm puzzled. > First, I think we all recognise > now that the honor system is much less effective online than > in-person for a variety of reasons including low barriers, limited > repercussions and effective anonymity, and so the likelihood of the > honor system working is much less than in-person. I just don't grok the above. IETF108, which is the only meeting to which any of this applies, was already online only so no f2f comparisons apply. That's about the 3rd time I've gotten confused by the difference between the stated "this is 108-only" and subsequent statements. > Second, the > consequence of getting it wrong could have been a large number of > people abusing that and those who didn’t abuse it feeling very > aggrieved at us for allowing that. "Could have been" isn't really a risk evaluation. For that one needs to consider probabilities and impacts. The impact of a crap load of registered participants re-tx'ing the proceedings of IETF108 would be minuscule. I would really hope almost all of the people who would pay for remote registration would fully understand the ability to re-tx bits (if not, I'd prefer they didn't register) and hence would not be aggrieved at all. Perhaps they would have found it funny. > > I welcome any further feedback. Other than the above: the processes and decisions here have been far from great. I'd recommend rolling back to before the "charge for 108" decision was made myself if the organisation can afford it and I hope we can. Putting the community *demonstrably* back in control before any decisions about remote fees are made seems like the only good outcome here. S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
