On 6/10/20 6:21 PM, Jay Daley wrote: > As well as stating that you see this a switch from a zero to non-zero > fee, I think you’ve also stated that such a switch can only be made with > community consensus. Given that you and some others firmly oppose this > switch it would seem that community consensus could not be achieved > within the necessary timeframe to make such as switch for IETF 108, if > at all, no matter what process was used to try to find consensus. Well, I don't know about that. Stephen can (and does, with admirable vigor) make his own arguments but from my perspective this discussion really hasn't grappled in any meaningful way with the question of openness and the IETF's working method. Introducing a fee for all remote participation in IETF meetings introduces a new barrier to participation[*]. It's not simply about the money, per se. And if we're introducing barriers to participation in ways that impact the openness of the process, it does seem inappropriate to do that without some fairly deliberate community discussion. Melinda [*] The fee waiver program strikes me as a bandaid, not a solution. -- Melinda Shore melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx Software longa, hardware brevis
