(ART removed -- this has ceased to be about that review -- and explicitly adding Lars for reasons that will be obvious) Mirja, I've deferred responding to this because I was not sure there was anything useful to be added. After reading the comments over the last few days and responding to John Scudder, I think maybe there is, so... --On Thursday, January 26, 2023 13:31 +0100 Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=40ericsson.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi John, > > For the fee waiver one can see all needed information here: > > https://www.ietf.org/forms/116-registration-fee-waiver/ > > So I believe the requester can make an informed decision. I believe that is correct although I can find no requirement or principle, in this document or elsewhere, requiring that form, or what it discloses, or how early it is expected to be available, for future meetings. IMO, it would be a terrible idea for the IETF to get bogged down in the details, but a statement of principle about that information being available long in advance, even a meeting or more in advance, would be reasonable. So would a statement allowing exceptions if exceptional circumstances arise if the LLC encounters such circumstances and is willing to explain them to the community. > However, if you want to change or discuss that, I still > believe it's out of scope of this document and better > connected with the broader question about identify and privacy > of participants as you discuss below. I encourage to start a > separate discussion and probably rather on the gendispatch > list (or of course even better propose a draft if you have > concrete proposals for policy). Here is where I have a different concern, one I have alluded to earlier and to which I hope the IESG will pay attention and discuss ... ideally without holding up this document. First of all and right now, I believe there is momentum and context for thinking about the broad set of issues associated with remote attendance at meetings, including what people need to "pay" to attend. "Pay", and "costs" below, are in quotes because I'm not just talking about fees, I'm including what it is reasonable to expect people to give up in terms of disclosure of information, making applications for fee waivers and other special treatment if needed, and so on. It also includes questions about -- what alternatives exist if those "costs" are judged, by the potential participant, to be too high and -- ones about the risks to the IETF, and its effectiveness and reputation, should there be a perception that we are moving more toward "pay to play" even if there fee waivers or other exceptions. To say "not in scope for this document" is fine. To say something closer to "not in scope for SHMOO, take it to GENDISPATCH" is not only a stretch from how I read the SHMOO charter (YMMD, of course) but, assuming that it were not simply a way to kill discussion (intentional or not), it pushes things in the direction of Yet Another WG with responsibilities and scope that overlaps an existing one. IMO, such WGs are an all-around problem: if the same people join both mailing lists and participate in both, it is wasted administrative (and other) overhead. If they don't, we end up with fragmented discussions and reduced perspectives and review prior to IETF LC. And, either way (and at least IMO), every additional WG is more work for relevant ADs and the IESG in general, resulting in more tendencies toward AD overload, pressures to make the IESG bigger (and possibly more difficult for it to function as a coherent body or be "managed"), and perhaps reduced willingness of people to be candidates for those positions. Those possible side-effects are certainly not SHMOO's problem, but I don't believe we should be reading SHMOO's scope narrowly enough to push the community toward them. Of course, the other problem with sending the questions off to GENDISPATCH is that the issues are complex enough that I would assume that things will drag out to at least IETF 116 and possibly longer, losing whatever momentum and thoughts that people have in their minds today. Lars? IESG? Some guidance here would be helpful. If you want notes, or even a skeleton for a draft, sent off to GENDISPATCH (but with the understanding that I will recommend that GENDISPATCH assign the work to SHMOO), I'm willing to try to do that but, because I think it is a bad idea, I won't do so without some explicit guidance. thanks, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
