Hi Jari, I oscillated between 'should' and 'must' myself. The principal reason I ended with a 'must' was that agreeing on exceptions can be perceived as excluding people from the process. In the real world some of us live justifying funds for 1-2 days interim of one WG is more difficult than getting a full IETF week approved. Remote participation is the only option. The 'must' requirement also seems pretty ubiquitous nowadays - it translates into 'the host of a f2f interim must ensure that a microphone and external phone connection exists in the room and the chairs must activate Meetecho or Webex'. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:02 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and > Virtual Interim Meetings > > Dan, > > > I suggest to add the following bullet to the face-to-face interim guidelines: > > > > - Remote participation (via Meetecho or similar) must be provided > > I think that's a good addition, although I'd probably use the keyword 'should' > to leave some wiggle room for special situations. We don't need to specify > everything that the working groups do as rules. > If the WG has reasonable leadership, they will do the right thing. > > Jari