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
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Ross Finlayson
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Alexa Morris
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Lars Eggert
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 John C Klensin
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Michael Richardson
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Alexa Morris
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 John C Klensin
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Keith Moore
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Ross Finlayson
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Keith Moore
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 John Levine
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Keith Moore
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 John Levine
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Keith Moore
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 George Michaelson
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 touch@strayalpha.com
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Keith Moore
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Carsten Bormann
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Livingood, Jason
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 John C Klensin
- RE: Registration open for IETF 114 Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Mary B
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Anupam Agrawal
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Mary B
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Keith Moore
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Livingood, Jason
- Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Registr… Jay Daley
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Keith Moore
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Christian Hopps
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Mary B
- Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Reg… Michael Douglass
- Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Reg… Keith Moore
- Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Reg… Mary B
- Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Reg… Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Reg… Keith Moore
- Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Reg… Holland, Jake
- Re: Are IETF meeting fees exclusionary? (Was: Reg… Keith Moore
- Re: Registration open for IETF 114 Alexa Morris