Thanks Mary, make a lot of sense to me. Very nice to see acting
on principle, and too bad that the result of that had to be to not
fully being able to attend/participate live.
Just as a reminder: I did early in these pricing discussions also proposed
to allow participants to chime in with whatever they felt the meeting was
worth to them. That was then rejected if i remember correcty with a lot
of issues raised against complexity in tooling and reporting and
taxation and fairness and evil capitalist tendencies (if participants
from rich companies where to pay more and privileges would sneak in).
None of those counter argument persuaded me. I still continue to propose to:
- let everyone pay what they can/want-to.
- Ask for the affiliation entered on registration to be who pays
(none if paid individually, but also "myself inc." if having a one-person company.)
- have a list of proposed charges based on different situations
- show whats been paid on the attendance web page.
Cheers
toerless
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:54:24PM -0500, Mary B wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 3:34 PM Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 19/08/2020, at 2:53 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Warren,
> > At 07:30 AM 17-08-2020, Warren Kumari wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to ask y'all to reconsider leaving this list, because voices
> > matter, individually and in the aggregate. The IESG needs to know
> > every time it screws up (and, hopefully, if we get something right!).
> > I completely understand -- and agree -- that participating in the list
> > can be painful and difficult; but please, try to stick it out. We need
> > to be building the society that we want; one part of this is
> > participating in these uncomfortable discussions, and also letting the
> > "leadership" know when we mess up. I know it sometimes might not seem
> > like it, but we are listening, and really are trying to do the right
> > thing.
> >
> > This list might not be where the technical work gets done, but it is
> > one of the places where community is built. And a community matters
> > for technical discussions, especially when there is dissenting opinion
> > or a contentious topic.
> >
> >
> > First of all, thank you for posting the above message.
> >
> > Nowadays, this mailing list is an avenue for subscribers who cannot pay
> > the fee for the LLC's Pay-TV channel [1] to express their opinion.
> >
> >
> > I think you are well aware that this was a mistake that was swiftly
> > corrected
> >
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xMoaLSjq30gxPK4cbqfjAMyJzlM/
> >
> > I think you are are also well aware that we offered unlimited fee waivers
> > for IETF 108.
> >
> > While both of those had significant missteps on the way, the end result
> > was a meeting that anyone could participate in and therefore your
> > description of the situation is far from accurate.
> >
> [MB] To pick one nit here, there were 12 people that responded to your
> survey as to why they didn't attend and you didn't identify the reason for
> all of them. So, I'll explain my reason which may be an anomaly or perhaps
> applies to others. While you offered unlimited fee waivers, the wording
> was clear that those should be used by folks for whom it's a significant
> barrier to participation. For some of us that are paying our own way, the
> fee was just a little more than we thought worth the benefit, since often
> the most significant value to independent folks is the networking. So, I
> took advantage of the YouTube channel and post meeting meetecho
> recordings. As I said during the discussion of the fee thread, I'd be
> willing to pay something and would love the option to donate depending upon
> what my accounting for the year looks like. I just did not feel that I
> qualified for a fee waiver in principle. But, I would have paid $99 (for
> other conferences I've been attending that have switched to virtual, that's
> been the max fee - often less). I thought about the one day pass but by
> the time the agenda was out I couldn't decide which one day I would attend
> and by then I was already in the Late registration deadline. [/MB]
>
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > It can also be useful for subscribers who do not have a "right to
> > redress" [2]. That right is more important than the right to vote as it
> > provides a protection against arbitrary decisions or procedural failures.
> >
> > It is not possible to build a society when the leaders are happily cut off
> > from the rest of the society, e.g. most Area Directors do not participate
> > in ietf@ discussions, or when Area Directors decide what they believe is
> > right without being accountable for their decisions.
> >
> > It is the first time I see a subscriber receiving a warning from the
> > Sergeant-at-Arms for sending an email [3] to the IETF Chair. That is the
> > kind of event you would see in so-called authoritarian regimes. On a
> > tangent, I previously suggested to an IAB member that the Sergeant-at-Arms
> > is not a model to follow [4].
> >
> > It is also the first time that I see a subscriber reprimanded for sending
> > substantive messages to this mailing list. This is part of an announcement
> > whish is issued on a Last Call: Please send substantive comments ... The
> > IESG is requesting substantive comments in one context and forbidding it in
> > another context. Does that make sense to you?
> >
> > Regards,
> > S. Moonesamy
> >
> > 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OVpGoGUKoTBGS-9DUQ7tuCBV174/
> > 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-03
> > 3. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5q24VzOoxoC_3KbIKTACQ6FvLGY/
> > 4.
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/mZioFDZ34zQSh7fU23sK9lmqTg8/
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jay Daley
> > IETF Executive Director
> > jay@xxxxxxxx
> >
> >
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
