Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)

Dave Cridland <> Tue, 03 March 2015 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7831A8740 for <>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 06:32:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ri1NbOOrLpB5 for <>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 06:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5E901A8757 for <>; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 06:32:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecrl12 with SMTP id rl12so58587063iec.2 for <>; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:32:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Zps4I2k0EteIHYtnzU88SMQ9FFkijQhJ1ltTmEw/ugs=; b=PpvXD3rQ9oXeWo18DWlG2CKgrXqxLstXjxt9+PBAfZvAmTALSd9coCB2+a/UuTnwbz YAAbO+JjJytKrBQXpWW5cz5LQ3QnyjqAsjDt/630YnedX5tM35ONJgQjmwp1m0T9mYxD v1v2cOHCN8pQUwMdfMSL+UyNVyvqXSwrEEvBU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Zps4I2k0EteIHYtnzU88SMQ9FFkijQhJ1ltTmEw/ugs=; b=igH58Y/uET/G9dcTTl1HxCV8mIM7L8HBvkFG6zAFz3DugJ0jqPwLLXG9UfOGsDgBPH 9eICVtZmLtSmKwsdUmKmWlYrANU2WLyZ9ALS9NGCNfdr3li1MlRpu3sjTGQ+zewbPYM6 D5/+OgT4aOfmTEDtpPS4UqVUbRKhuAI8pteMH14VweFPWKCN0Y6gFQ6ZcfWiSQ80YZg3 4DX+p6hfi7GucHeYCR44efCFYwthg2Go59JzFEbTRnv3UT4utcVW4VEP5g7bm3O5bm5r QCgsrJL/bTTV2LIfSDSYHhRjlXRDah+dnf4yeYzMcqZOMh0SDaGgY89DW9QrIF7AkGAY LTEw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkhnajziFqcX1Z+sTrUKSkgTPoslB75x5cB0bSopHHCXHG49cKBoYC5wkxc0AMOQkqhEVOU
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id l5mr22926217oeo.69.1425393141668; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:32:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 06:32:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:32:21 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
From: Dave Cridland <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3093adff39c0510633387
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, " Discussion" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:32:25 -0000

On 3 March 2015 at 02:00, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> So I really don't know why this keeps coming up.   I guess there is some
> real anger out there about the current nomcom situation.   But if that's
> so, this is part of the process of changing that.   So you might want to
> consider not shooting the messenger.

I'm not shooting the messenger intentionally at least; I am trying to shoot
the message.

I would rather avoid any kind of participation requiring fees, most
especially any kind of participation we consider to be particularly useful.
This implies major changes to how IETF funding works.

I did suggest at one point that if we re-evaluated what we use the physical
meetings for, we might continue to charge for them and in addition increase
the value to the community from them, but I'm not sure anyone picked up on
that, so I'll repeat that here:

We've tended to berate those who turn up to physical WG meetings having not
read the drafts; we also say we like physical meetings spanning the entire
IETF because this enables cross-area review and discussion.

If the meetings focussed strictly on cross-area review, then each working
group meeting would then best be used presenting the state of its work to
people assumed not to have read the drafts. This would mean that (for
example) Apps people can keep up to date on what the TLS working group are
doing without having to pore over drafts which understandably expect a deep
understanding of commsec and crypto.

This becomes useful to industry, which can then more easily keep up to date
with the current work without the sizable investment of time in tracking a
working group. This really is a trade-off worth actual money; but it
entirely shifts what we use the meetings for currently (a set of concurrent
but disconnected meetings alongside some arguably more important
discussions in corridors).

Another discussion we could have is to ask what problem the hallway
conversations are actually solving, and whether we could address that in a
way that was more logistically and financially inclusive.