Re: [Manycouches] AD review: draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-04

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

and happy new year! Could we get the ball rolling on this document again? I believe there will be a new revision coming and then it can go to last call.

Thanks,
Lars

On Dec 8, 2022, at 14:58, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-04
> 
> CC @larseggert
> 
> ## Comments
> 
> ### Section 1, paragraph 2
> ```
>     Remote participation for IETF in-person meetings has evolved over
>     time from email-only to live chat and audio streaming, and,
>     subsequently, to a full online meeting system that is tightly
>     integrated with the in-room session and enables interactive
>     participation by audio and video.  Due to this evolution, and because
>     most in-person attendees paid registration fees and this has been
>     sufficient to support the meeting, online participation has
>     historically been free for remote attendees.
> ```
> The meeting fees have never been sufficient to support the meetings -
> meeting sponsors and the ISOC support are critical. I think it may be
> better to replace the entire final sentence with simply "Online
> participation has historically been free for remote attendees",
> sidestepping all of this.
> 
> ### Section 1, paragraph 3
> ```
>     With the move to fully online meetings in 2020, however, there is no
>     longer a distinction between remote and on-site participants.  Since
>     IETF meeting costs and other costs still had to be covered, there was
>     the need for a meeting fee for remote participants, which risks the
>     removal of the free remote option.
> ```
> Would rephrase the last sentence as "Since IETF meeting costs and
> other costs still had to be recovered, a meeting fee was charged for
> remote participants, eliminating the free remote participation
> option (for a time)."
> 
> ### Section 2, paragraph 3
> ```
>     The principle this document states is simple: there must always be an
>     option for free remote participation in any IETF meeting, regardless
>     of whether the meeting has a physical presence.  Related events of a
>     meeting for which the IETF provides remote participation services and
>     are therefore part of the IETF's open process [RFC3935] are
>     encouraged to follow this principle as well.
> ```
> Suggest to rephrase the last sentence as "Related events collocated
> with an IETF meeting are part of the IETF's open process [RFC3935] and
> are encouraged to follow this principle as well.""
> 
> ### Section 3, paragraph 2
> ```
>     Online meetings can have lower costs than in-person meetings,
>     however, they still come with expenses, as do other services that the
>     IETF provides such as mailing lists, document access via the
>     datatracker or other online platforms, or support for
>     videoconferencing, e.g., with Webex accounts for working groups and
>     other roles in the IETF.
> ```
> Webex is not a good example, since it's an in-kind donation. We do pay
> for Meetecho, that would be a better example.
> 
> ### Section 3, paragraph 2
> ```
>     These and other operating costs of the IETF are also cross-financed
>     by income generated through meeting fees.  The intention of this
>     document and the principle stated herein is not to make participation
>     free for everyone, but to always offer a free remote participation
>     option that a potential attendee can apply for without any barriers
>     other than the registration procedure itself.  As long as the overall
>     meeting expenses are covered by paid registrations, sponsorships and
>     other sources of revenue, additional remote participants usually
>     impose very low additional expenses.
> ```
> "without any barriers other than the registration procedure" - this
> seems to prevent requiring fee waiver requests?
> 
> ### Inclusive language
> 
> Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
> guidance:
> 
> * Terms `his` and `her`; alternatives might be `they`, `them`, `their`
> 
> ## Nits
> 
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
> did with these suggestions.
> 
> ### Typos
> 
> #### Section 1, paragraph 2
> ```
> -    seen an increasing number of remote participants.  This increase can
> +    seeing an increasing number of remote participants.  This increase can
> +       + +
> ```
> 
> #### Section 1, paragraph 2
> ```
> -    better understand these trends the IETF started requiring
> +    better understand these trends, the IETF started requiring
> +                                  +
> ```
> 
> #### Section 1, paragraph 3
> ```
> -    With the move to fully online meetings in 2020, however, there is no
> -                                                                   ^
> +    With the move to fully online meetings in 2020, however, there was no
> +                                                                   ^^
> ```
> 
> #### Section 1, paragraph 4
> ```
> -    about the potential impact on both, those who regularly remotely
> -                                      -
> ```
> 
> #### Section 1, paragraph 4
> ```
> -    attend IETF meetings as well as people considering attending an IETF
> -                           --------------
> +    attend IETF meetings and those considering attending an IETF
> +                          ++++++
> ```
> 
> #### Section 2, paragraph 5
> ```
> -    and documentation and making them accessible over the Internet, it
> -        ---- ---   ^^        ^^^
> +    and materials and to make them accessible over the Internet, it
> +           ++ ^^^     +++   ^
> ```
> 
> #### Section 2, paragraph 6
> ```
> -    possible.  This document rather says that if remote participation is
> -                                      ^
> +    possible.  This document rather states that if remote participation is
> +                                     + ^^
> ```
> 
> #### Section 3, paragraph 1
> ```
> -    however, they still come with expenses, as do other services that the
> -                  -- ^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> -    IETF provides such as mailing lists, document access via the
> +    however, they incur expenses, as do other services that the
> +                   ^ ^^
> +    IETF provides, such as mailing lists, document access via the
> +                 +
> ```
> 
> #### Section 3, paragraph 2
> ```
> -    These and other operating costs of the IETF are also cross-financed
> -                                                      ^^
> +    These and other operating costs of the IETF are partially cross-financed
> +                                                    +++++  ^^
> ```
> 
> #### Section 3, paragraph 3
> ```
> -    the cost of free participation emerges to a signification factor, the
> +    the cost of free participation emerges to be a signification factor, the
> +                                              +++
> ```
> 
> #### Section 4, paragraph 1
> ```
> -    This document does not provide specific requirements on when to use
> -                           ^ -----          ^^^   ^^^
> +    This document does not offer specific guidance to participants on when to use
> +                           ^^^^           ^  +++++++++++ ^^^^^^
> ```
> 
> #### Section 4, paragraph 1
> ```
> -    participants, nor to any specific other restrictions like the number
> -                             ---  ----- -  ------ ^^^^^^
> +    participants, nor to any criteria, like the number
> +                              +     ^^
> ```
> 
> #### Section 4, paragraph 2
> ```
> -    It is expected that participants who have financial support to use
> -           ^^^ ^                                                ---
> -    the regular registration option will do so.  Paying a registration
> -                                   -----------
> +    It is encouraged that participants who have financial support use
> +           ^ ^^^^^
> +    the regular paid registration option.  Paying a registration
> +               +++++
> ```
> 
> #### Section 4, paragraph 3
> ```
> -    the number and percentage of free registrations used should be
> -                                                    -----
> ```
> 
> #### Section 4, paragraph 3
> ```
> -    published, as this will permit analysis of the use and change in use
> -                                                      ------------------
> ```
> 
> #### Section 4, paragraph 4
> ```
> -    As the principle defined in this document aims to promote openness
> -                                                               -- ----
> -    and thereby enhance participation, an increase in use of free
> -                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
> +    As the principle defined in this document aims to promote participation
> +                                                              +++++++++++
> +    and thereby enhance openness, an increase in use of free
> +                        + ^ ++++
> ```
> 
> #### Section 4, paragraph 4
> ```
> -    registrations stays stable and retains the projected needed income.
> -    If the number of paid registrations, however, decreases, this can
> -    ^                                  ----------
> -    still also have various reasons other than misuse, such as
> -    ^ ------- -----
> +    registrations stays stable and the needed registration revenue is realized.
> +    However, if the number of paid registrations decreases, this can
> +    ^^^^^^^^^^
> +    be due to various reasons other than misuse, such as
> +    ^^^^^^^
> ```
> 
> ## Notes
> 
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].
> 
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
> [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
> 
>