Hiya, On 10/06/2020 22:09, Alissa Cooper wrote: > For IETF 108 we didn’t have a lot of time to sort this out. Our > thinking was that any approach aside from random selection needs > substantial community consultation even if it will only apply to one > meeting because it implies subjective judgment about whose attendance > ought to be subsidized. We did not have time to do that before > registration details needed to be shared with the community. I think someone pointed it out earlier, but I'm also puzzled how one can reach a conclusion that introducing a fee for remote registration didn't need community debate but the flavour of waiver for said fee does require such debate. The only way I can make sense of that is if one has concluded that remote registration fees are happening for sure, regardless of what the community think, and that's a concern as it has all sorts of impacts that to me absolutely do require community debate before anything is done. Again, I think the best outcome here would be to waive 100% and not 100 of the remote registration fees for IETF108 and let the community debate this before such decisions are taken. If we cannot afford that, then please say so clearly - that would be a relevant fact. But if we could afford that, I really don't get why it's ok to barge ahead like this. S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
