Re: Registration details for IETF 108

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 01-Jun-20 09:44, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 5/31/20 1:13 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> I don't think the characterization of this as "pay-to-play" is accurate. You
>> are certainly free to participate in mailing lists, github, etc.
> 
> I'm somewhat troubled by this, as well, tbh.  

What troubles me is the lack of a debate in the community before this
was announced with about a week's notice.

For my own part, I have no idea whether I would have to pay this out
of my own pocket or not, and determining that would take more rounds of
email than can happen before registration opens. Since this isn't a
travel-related fee, the procedures many of us are used to for meeting
fees don't apply. I'm very much aware that this is the new normal,
but it's going to take a while for employers' approval procedures to
catch up. How many people will be excluded for that reason?

It probably doesn't matter in my case since the announced timezone
for the meeting rules it out anyway, but as a matter of principle,
we haven't had a debate about the principle, and that seems wrong.
For example, 

1) Is listen-only attendance charged the same fee as listen-and-speak?
If so, is that right or wrong?

2) Why is there a late fee? It's not as if extra cookies have to
be bought at the last minute.

And I'm sure there are other questions.

   Brian

> To the extent that
> the IETF has gradually and effectively moved to having decisions
> made in meetings it would be unfortunate indeed to exclude
> people based on financial circumstances.  I'd like to see the
> decision-making situation fixed but given the history of that
> discussion I think we are where we are, and free remote participation
> provides at least some mitigation.  I also tend to think that
> saying that meeting participation isn't necessary because {mailing
> lists,Github,whatever} is incompatible with the insistence that
> the IETF continue to meet because it's not really possible to
> progress work without real-time discussion.  I'll also note that
> for as long as there's been a remote participation option available
> it's been free.  We're now in the odd position of having all-remote
> meetings absorb what used to be "remote participants" into the
> group of "participants," with some consequential side-effects
> (although arguably there are no such things as side-effects, just
> effects).
> 
> I do think this decision has some unintended consequences.
> Scholarships or other subsidy might provide some mitigation
> but would potentially be messy/awkward.  The organization
> is long overdue for some navel-gazing about working methods.
> It's unreasonable to expect perfect consistency but I think
> things have gotten a little more incoherent than they should
> be.
> 
> Melinda
>