Hi, SM. > >>Will the "high-level principles" be about hopes or ambitions to > >>achieve something? > > > >I don't understand this question. > > First, I'll quote an extract from RFC 8719 as it may help to explain > what I am asking about: > > "Implementation of the Policy > > IASA should understand the policy written in this document to be the > aspiration of the IETF community." > > The word "aspiration" can be interpreted as being about hopes or > ambitions. Based on my experience from another organization which is > not related to the IETF, policies are not intended to be > aspirations. The rationale for that is because a policy is there to > guide decision-making instead of leaving it to the whims of the > person(s) authorized to take the decision. That wording was to be clear that 1-1-1-* is what the IETF community wants to happen, but to allow IASA flexibility in implementing it, given the realities of meeting venue selection and scheduling. We did not want someone to get the mistaken idea that if we were unable to secure, say, an Asian venue in one particular year, the policy was being violated, while making it clear that IASA needs to do its collective best to maintain the long-term balance as set out in Section 2. > Before the pandemic, there were two categories of IETF community: > > (i) people who are charged an attendance fee to attend IETF meetings > in person. > > (ii) people who are not charged an attendance fee to attend IETF meetings > remotely. > > Since the pandemic, the IETF has been unable to hold IETF meetings in > person and it switched to a fully only meeting [1]. People in > categories (i) and (ii) are charged an attendance fee. However, the > people in category (ii) are not being offered the same treatment as > the people in category (i). Indeed, and that absolutely needs to be dealt with. In fact, I, personally, think it's one of the most important things we, as an organization, have to deal with, and I hope we can move forward *now* with what's been discussed on the eligibility list. Maybe draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand is the right start for that, but we MUST correct the situation wherein some of our active, valuable participants do not have the same status simply because they don't come to in-person meetings. That said, I'm OK with separating that task from the tasks defined for SHMOO. Barry
