On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2020-06-08, at 21:11, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
FWIW I think the principle went beyond just observation. I
remember Phil Gross saying, when he was IETF Chair, that the
IETF didn't check badges at meeting room doors since it was
more important to have good technical contribution than to
block those who couldn't pay. Of course, this didn't mean
allowing anonymous contributions or that those that payed
weren't subsidizing those who didn't.
We of course blew that principle off when we had a few meetings
in which where badge checks at meeting room doors and we tried
experiments about badge readers at microphones. And, IIR, we
instituted the former with a lot less discussion and fuss than
the current changes have caused.
Badge readers always were optional (I never managed to properly operate one).
Badge checks were a one-time thing needed for a meeting in a country
that made this a prerequisite for Internet access. I think we
accepted that regression as the one-time thing it was because
Internet access is something very unusual in that country and we
were very happy to be able to meet there.
I also remember badge checks being a only-one-time thing, though
there might be some confusion about the history.
A code was needed for network access at TWO meetings, and (IIRC) that
code was printed on our badges. We tested that system at IETF78 in
Maastricht in July 2010 then used it at IETF79 in Beijing.
Badge checks happened at only one meeting - IETF79 in Beijing. The
IAOC explained that they were imposed by the host and/or hotel, not
the IETF. (We got different answers about who imposed it, and, as far
as I recall, never a definitive one.) As John observes, this checking
was indeed implemented with little discussion - the IAOC implied and
perhaps said that even they were not consulted, and the community was
certainly not consulted. And at least some of us were not complacent
about it. I raised it in the plenary, and I and others raised it on
this list.
In any case, I think the Beijing debacle does not set precedent, since
that requirement was imposed by someone other than ourselves. Badge
checking is not normal practice at a normal IETF meeting. And the
Beijing meeting was not normal.
Excerpts from the archives:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1lrhHGPg0ejrkkqfk0WYIm891eQ/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dZX08hYhXyjUEAecTlGoM63dTjw/
As for the present discussion, I am deeply concerned about the
process, also. My first instinct is that we should not charge a fee
for this meeting, but, if we do, we need community consensus around
it first.
-- Sam Weiler
