Re: Registration details for IETF 108

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 01/06/2020 23:50, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2/06/2020, at 10:39 AM, Stephen Farrell
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hiya,
>> 
>> On 01/06/2020 23:14, Jay Daley wrote:
>>>> Would it still apply when onsite meetings start to happen ?
>>> No decision has been made about that.
>> 
>> Would it be sensible to promise/ensure that a community discussion
>> that determines direction, within the bounds of practicality,
>> precedes, rather than follows, that decision? FWIW, I think it
>> would and it's important that that be the case. IOW, let's sort out
>> our approach to this before the timeframe of IETF109.
> 
> It would be excellent if that could happen.

Agreed. I take it that means we'll all try make that
happen and that there'll be a discussion of this before
IETF109. (Hopefully that discussion will be done ahead
of the meeting date, but yeah, that might not happen;-)

> 
>> 
>> It might or might not be a nit but while the detailed level of
>> reasonable meeting fee is properly an LLC operational matter, the
>> distinction between zero vs. non-zero fees for remote participants
>> is IMO very much not an LLC matter and definitely does require
>> community consensus.
> 
> I would say that it should be covered by community consensus 

Sorry, I guess I was unclear. In the above I was trying to
say that I think the longer term zero vs. non-zero decision
requires community consensus. It's understandable if short-
term problems get in the way of that, but not ok that those
short-term issues trump the need for community consensus.

Cheers,
S.

> but as
> it isn’t and we have limited time to plan then it falls on the LLC
> to fill the gap as an interim measure.  From my perspective the
> sooner the community provides guidance the better, though I should
> repeat my suggestion that this discussed in the context of the
> overall financial structure of the IETF (i.e. what we charge for and
> why) and how that relates to the aspirations of the IETF for
> participation, rather than just in the context of meeting finances.
> 
> Jay
> 
>> 
>> Cheers, S.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
>