Ballot for draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee
Summary: Needs one more YES or NO OBJECTION position to pass.
Firstly, thanks for the document, I imagine this could not have been easy to write and frame. I've gone through the abstain ballots from other IESG members, and while I believe I understand the positions taken in those ballots, I take a slightly different view. By in effect codifying the fact that there will be a guaranteed free remote participation option, this can actually encourage participation. One of the questions I have been asked by individuals who have decided to use the remote participation fee waivers is - will this continue, because if not, whats the point of using it now, and suddenly finding myself in a position where I can't afford to attend in future. While we can say we have no plans to remove those fee waivers, that's different from saying its codified. It's on that basis that I fully support this - and yes, I am cognizant of the potential issues this creates with the finances, but as the document notes and as has been noted elsewhere, the incremental cost of remote participation has proven to be relatively inconsequential.
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-05 CC @ekline ## Nits ### S1 * "impact on both," -> "impact on both" or even just "impact on" seeing as how the next sentence also starts with referencing "both"... ### S2 * "f they" -> "if they" ### S3 * "signification factor" -> "significant factor"? ### S4 * "simply lost of" -> "simply loss of"
Perhaps a bit like Eric, I'm somewhat ambivalent on this draft. I agree with the aspiration of always having free remote access, but I'm not sure whether we really need a RFC to mandate this (as opposed to a webpage documenting the current policy). (1) p 3, sec 2. Principle of Open Participation Further, in order to fully remove barriers to participation, any free registration option must offer the same degree of interactivity and functionality available to paid remote attendees. I would strongly prefer that this is a 'should' rather than a 'must'. Although, I don't perceive it as being that likely, is it not conceivable that the LLC might want to offer some extra enhanced remote service that they need to charge for (e.g., a slightly strawman example could be a telepresence robot), or perhaps paid live voice transcription services, where the cost of providing the service is shared between those participants making use of the service. Regards, Rob
At this point I’m not comfortable with the position the document stakes out, or doesn’t stake out. Probably this is clear from the email exchange. I think this could likely be addressed, but as the conversation has unfolded it seems we’re diverging rather than converging, so maybe it’s best for me to abstain.
Robust remote participation mechanisms helped the IETF weather COVID; and had the additional benefit of bringing new participants to the IETF. It should be ensured that this additional engagement is nurtured and sustained. I have reservations on how this document is providing guidance and the framing the key principle. My position roughly combines what Warren and Éric have also noted in their ABSTAIN ballots. More specifically: ** Section 2. 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. I concur with Rob Wilton’s assessment that this text would be better framed as “there _should_ always be an option …”. My interest is in providing maximum operating flexibility in unusual circumstances. ** Section 3. This section doesn’t appear to be actionable or introduction any new principles beyond stating a corollary of the principle in Section 2 which is that enabling free remote participation in the current business model is partially subsidized by other participants paying. As an example of this ambiguity: If unlimited free remote participation is determined to adversely affect the number of paying participants or the cost of free participation emerges to be a signification factor, the LLC might implement additional measures to manage these costs. What are the limits of these “additional measures” to contain costs? Could it be up to reducing the free participation espoused in Section 2? ** Section 4. Editorial clarity. This document does not provide specific requirements on when to use or not use the free option. This text creates some ambiguity. It would benefit from being clearer on what “use” means. Maybe: This document does not provide specific requirements on when it is appropriate for an IETF community member to use or not use the free option to remotely attend a meeting.
Like Eric, I am abstaining. I believe that *all* IETF participation should be free - but then again I also believe that cookies should be larger, taxes should be abolished, cancer should be eradicated, everyone should have a fluffy kitten and those annoying blister packs that batteries come in should be required to have a pull tab. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to make these decisions - apparently some of them are technically infeasible, some have funding issues, some of them have been delegated to other groups (like governments), and most worryingly of all, some people claim to prefer puppies. We already have a principle that the IETF should be open to participation from all, and we already have an LLC and Executive Director to whom we've delegated annoying things like making sure that we can actually pay the bills. I believe that we should trust these groups to do their jobs, and that it is not appropriate for me to try teach them to suck eggs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs) Now, if y'all want to discuss the whole kitten and blister pack topics...
This must have been a very difficult to author document... So, congratulations to the authors, shepherd, and the SHMOO WG. But, I am ambivalent on this document: it is of course good will to offer a free access, but it is also a little 'hand waving' to the IETF LLC that must both avoid loss and offer free access. Hence my ABSTAIN ballot. I am also puzzled by the first paragraph of section 2 ending with `about the registration fee structure for fully online meetings` while the document appears to be for hybrid and fully online meetings. Regards -éric