Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Mary B <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 3:34 PM Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On 19/08/2020, at 2:53 AM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Warren,
> At 07:30 AM 17-08-2020, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> I'd like to ask y'all to reconsider leaving this list, because voices
> matter, individually and in the aggregate. The IESG needs to know
> every time it screws up (and, hopefully, if we get something right!).
> I completely understand -- and agree -- that participating in the list
> can be painful and difficult; but please, try to stick it out. We need
> to be building the society that we want; one part of this is
> participating in these uncomfortable discussions, and also letting the
> "leadership" know when we mess up. I know it sometimes might not seem
> like it, but we are listening, and really are trying to do the right
> thing.
>
> This list might not be where the technical work gets done, but it is
> one of the places where community is built. And a community matters
> for technical discussions, especially when there is dissenting opinion
> or a contentious topic.
>
>
> First of all, thank you for posting the above message.
>
> Nowadays, this mailing list is an avenue for subscribers who cannot pay
> the fee for the LLC's Pay-TV channel [1] to express their opinion.
>
>
> I think you are well aware that this was a mistake that was swiftly
> corrected
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xMoaLSjq30gxPK4cbqfjAMyJzlM/
>
> I think you are are also well aware that we offered unlimited fee waivers
> for IETF 108.
>
> While both of those had significant missteps on the way, the end result
> was a meeting that anyone could participate in and therefore your
> description of the situation is far from accurate.
>
[MB] To pick one nit here, there were 12 people that responded to your
survey as to why they didn't attend and you didn't identify the reason for
all of them.  So, I'll explain my reason which may be an anomaly or perhaps
applies to others.    While you offered unlimited fee waivers, the wording
was clear that those should be used by folks for whom it's a significant
barrier to participation.  For some of us that are paying our own way, the
fee was just a little more than we thought worth the benefit, since often
the most significant value to independent folks is the networking. So, I
took advantage of the YouTube channel and post meeting meetecho
recordings.   As I said during the discussion of the fee thread, I'd be
willing to pay something and would love the option to donate depending upon
what my accounting for the year looks like.  I just did not feel that I
qualified for a fee waiver in principle.   But, I would  have paid $99 (for
other conferences I've been attending that have switched to virtual, that's
been the max fee - often less).   I thought about the one day pass but by
the time the agenda was out I couldn't decide which one day I would attend
and by then I was already in the Late registration deadline. [/MB]

>
> Jay
>
>  It can also be useful for subscribers who do not have a "right to
> redress" [2].  That right is more important than the right to vote as it
> provides a protection against arbitrary decisions or procedural failures.
>
> It is not possible to build a society when the leaders are happily cut off
> from the rest of the society, e.g. most Area Directors do not participate
> in ietf@ discussions, or when Area Directors decide what they believe is
> right without being accountable for their decisions.
>
> It is the first time I see a subscriber receiving a warning from the
> Sergeant-at-Arms for sending an email [3] to the IETF Chair.  That is the
> kind of event you would see in so-called authoritarian regimes.  On a
> tangent, I previously suggested to an IAB member that the Sergeant-at-Arms
> is not a model to follow [4].
>
> It is also the first time that I see a subscriber reprimanded for sending
> substantive messages to this mailing list.  This is part of an announcement
> whish is issued on a Last Call: Please send substantive comments ...  The
> IESG is requesting substantive comments in one context and forbidding it in
> another context.  Does that make sense to you?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OVpGoGUKoTBGS-9DUQ7tuCBV174/
> 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-03
> 3. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5q24VzOoxoC_3KbIKTACQ6FvLGY/
> 4.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/mZioFDZ34zQSh7fU23sK9lmqTg8/
>
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail]
>
>