Re: Registration details for IETF 108

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Mon, 01 June 2020 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
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 A2F2E3A1636 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ou7tJZ2Nd5iU; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED3983A15A8; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <680AEF9F-7733-4957-805D-FB90C1E099B8@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CC8A040B-4727-4921-AD65-A24DD336AA3F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: Registration details for IETF 108
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:50:11 +1200
In-Reply-To: <96d361c2-de64-8966-60a6-bad1763af790@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <159062833754.6110.5826748635235943562@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200531121457.0b249858@elandnews.com> <CABcZeBOzVHaSZa0A3eDz12RwNuCiHtiJL8wqvAhhLPN6YEQOkQ@mail.gmail.com> <afa11959-3348-4054-409c-803824a2f332@gmail.com> <b31bc70b-cc73-45e4-9449-d85313a88037@gmail.com> <f1d15bec-080a-7726-1921-8a06949b231f@cs.tcd.ie> <8f464404-5278-8178-66e5-44eaed748141@gmail.com> <5B1FD06B-BC4F-49E0-97A2-DF8A48CC24FB@cooperw.in> <e1044eb4-68be-1f36-eff5-f2d60e6d1ff9@gmail.com> <F6B24ECC-7969-4D72-92A3-DA6C2E47BF66@cs.ucla.edu> <CAOj+MMHmWnfXo4rYTxEvQ6LspMHxSo26DqZrLBin-7Wa-Dqs+w@mail.gmail.com> <D2FB84F2-2FD5-4091-BB70-580F4545FFF4@ietf.org> <96d361c2-de64-8966-60a6-bad1763af790@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/y9DSE7HCFaun4ywiLOx_zyG-hbc>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 01 Jun 2020 22:50:18 -0000


> On 2/06/2020, at 10:39 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> 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.

> 
> 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 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>

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org