Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Registration open for IETF 114)

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 16 May 2022 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9624DC2B6E88 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2022 13:25:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.755
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zipYRj_VZQW4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2022 13:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1352C26E8AA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2022 13:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC893200944 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2022 16:25:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 16 May 2022 16:25:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1652732701; x=1652819101; bh=WYwTn06WaGVoBMIib6UNMhwTMgZg WGgHs4Szza/tvBU=; b=yLlgljVSy8/1mgJ+IggW6K4ceqfvkw/ZNF1ogtyoU0Qw yPCpgj5DKudBA8UQeyZR6hr1r5uB7MHpVLxyBDkej7Oi3/YUrIJMsInhz80p0qSQ Pn9+yODDFJ3RkN/bFxlV8afOgYIb9nWeJzWWJnC2AV4mTmkUYjS60CIa1AmwVRyo oEb/calJXvK3uSjZ8+GLyfjnFyQffyotXQyid/m/h/D3KiN/Fof+7usjbHZVoQsZ 2G4pBXXdnolSevBgsIZoFBr1MP2qcPr4X269NEkYVC843etofhGI37Aeey9lVe2Z 4+5MJmXh/kVszPdsoD03h2EVVW67dkyrgMvy7SBQ6g==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:HbOCYnyrsCcRB0l8N9oDIBRLhAVpk9ukR_7n4-B61xGLuSPb7sGW_g> <xme:HbOCYvSHkIZt5ofS2wZ0ZyKPOYrhBhk9t9Y2QyQnByjiAveDdCE34CgM-7WvBNOgH tTDStmy_F4CYg>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:HbOCYhVz_wlgjPMnR6pJLgMcUVaD_pI4CwfDkNuk2lVr-fMOloymMFRSrVNrO260a6F3t9W9AbuymzQrvi7cbcHNvVhV7EwT0njJ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrheehgddugeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeftddvleeije evkeejhfeuudehveeihfejfedvgfduhfffhfduuddufeeggfetveenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorh hkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:HbOCYhhKaFUYcxj5HpWERj3sSWSd9gNg_ZsBEPd9YN01GGBaDUH8iw> <xmx:HbOCYpDgXGrEoj_hjxKlhnx7IHZzGe_6oCnjqqzM0pfYSsi-tae7kg> <xmx:HbOCYqKZ8yCrKVYix1En9YRx30Yv22Vk2J2lOEU5pSKpxPVEsw5-_g> <xmx:HbOCYsOJhDE8eFwsnBrxOHodoL73xamcX0NLgvCisftee8xy-6ILqQ>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2022 16:25:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <6631a2b6-ae81-a115-d671-80ae44264d7d@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 16:25:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Registration open for IETF 114)
Content-Language: en-US
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20220510030716.1A4EF3FB1AB6@ary.qy> <da09ca47-110f-269c-8140-ea7b6dfc120c@network-heretics.com> <CAKr6gn1D5WTzCdOktT1+=A+_S440TtrgFniqrLdfjiCZsBC9KA@mail.gmail.com> <2EB6CA87-A5AE-4C06-9891-7AA02E8627A9@gmail.com> <5A341380-5797-4D93-B4CF-D36A119E3F67@ietf.org> <c7ddcc5e-cf1b-3154-e316-6fedead8983a@gmail.com> <136770366.84755.1652707246535@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <136770366.84755.1652707246535@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/H-FX3qv2wrwBFiB59ojk8BIQ24g>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 20:25:11 -0000

On 5/16/22 09:20, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> In other words, any form of meeting puts someone at a disadvantage, 
> but none is "exclusionary in nature" - they just change the set of 
> people who get a disadvantage. 

While I don't inherently disagree with this statement, it's an easy (and 
dubious) leap from that statement to "we can't, or shouldn't try, to 
improve over the current way we do meetings".

> Hybrid is possibly the least exclusionary form, as it allows people to 
> choose between two modes and promotes a compromise between them. 

I don't think this follows.   There's a fallacy in presenting a false 
choice (as if there's only possible dimension to meeting format with 
only two values), picking one of those few choices, and labeling it as 
an overall superlative.

For example, the costs associated with attending in-person meetings 
really do matter, even if the meetings are hybrid and there are fee 
waivers for remote participation.

But I don't think there's a best answer.  I think instead that it's 
important to keep inclusion in mind in all aspects of IETF, and to 
actively solicit input from all kinds of potential participants, and be 
aware that conditions will change over time that will result in both new 
constraints and new opportunities.

Keith