Ballot for draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
# 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"
The proposed v2 text changes address my concern, so I'm changing this from Abstain to Yes. I'd like to *sincerely* thank the authors and WG for all of their hard work on this document and topic; it's an important one.
Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to John Klensin for his in depth review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/9Nv4gQqKizP8yIJH8qb07nTxQd4/. Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS comments in v-06 - as I said, the line is hard to draw, but I think the additional text did help in removing ambiguity. -- previous DISCUSS for archival (2023-02-02 for -05) ---- Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to John Klensin for his in depth review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/9Nv4gQqKizP8yIJH8qb07nTxQd4/, and to the authors and others for replying to it. I believe that there is value in publishing a high level principle document as a direction to LLC, even though I also understand that there is some intrinsic ambiguity with writing such a document. The line is hard to draw. I'm balloting DISCUSS to go over the points below, which I really believe are worth addressing. I tried to be as actionable as possible. * The reference to "Observer" as is in the document does not add much, and rather makes it unclear as the role of "observer" is not explicitly defined (neither in this document nor on RFC 3935). I would have liked this document to also specify the observer role and that the free observer option should also be supported as much as possible, however I seem to understand it out of scope for this document (a shame really, since it is so close to the topic). I suggest to just remove "(in contrast to an "observer")" and hope that someone will find the energy to pick up the topic and bring it to shmoo. * The document should give guidance to the LLC keep the identities of those who have have applied for fee waivers and any information that may be disclosed by those applications confidential. Mirja said "However, my assumption is that individual registration data (except the name in the participants list) is treated as confidential anyway" so then why not just state it in this document and make it explicit. In practice, I like John's suggestion of the following text or something of the sort be added: > "if someone applies for a fee waiver, the LLC is expected to collect the absolutely minimum amount of information required to allow..." (whatever it is they decide they need to allow) "and the community will be told what information is to be collected so that potential applicants can made informed decisions" * I understand that it was a conscious choice and that the sentence was discussed quite a bit, however I also think the following sentence in section 3 does not give any guidance to the LLC, and is in general just unclear: > 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. I believe some clarification is sorely needed as to what additional measures are envisioned (I believe this was also one of Roman's points). Somewhere in the discussion, Mirja said: "But we didn’t want to rule out anything because if it’s a problem for the financial viability of the IETF, it really goes beyond the scope of this document to give explicit guidance." It is strange to make a guidance document not give any guidance at all here...
# John Scudder, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-06 CC @jgscudder ## COMMENT I'm never going to love this document, short of the adoption of Jason's suggestion, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/sK9iGilqUdE7ZlkHZxQn4BOHPJQ which doesn't seem to be in the cards. However I'm not going to withhold a needed ballot to advance it on that basis, and the parts I found most problematic have been somewhat addressed in the latest revision, so I'm moving to NOOBJ. I do have some remaining comments, below. Some are new with 06 and some date back to 05. ### Section 2, vagueness of restriction of use of personal information (new) "any personal information that is collected with respect to the use of the free remote participation option must be held confidential" If it's necessary to provide this level of micromanagement at all (I would be happy for the sentence to be struck, and rely on the discretion of the LLC to do the right thing, as we do with other PII they collect), then shouldn't it say confidential *from whom*, and what the allowed and disallowed uses are? For example, may information be used to generate aggregate statistics, e.g. "X% of free participants were first-time, Y% were students"? There is a hint in Section 4 that some uses are OK, "Aggregated data on the number and percentage of free registrations used should be published, as this will permit analysis of the use and change in use over time of the free registration option without revealing personal information", but a maximalist reading of the Section 2 text would lead one to think that only the greatest amount of aggregation is permissible, i.e. only "X% of our registrations were free", nothing more. (Also, nit, not "held confidential". Should be "kept confidential" or "held in confidence".) ### Section 3, reference to Padlipsky, "Perspective on the ARPANET reference model" (new) "As defined in the RFC871". That isn't the right reference. Probably you wanted RFC 8711? Mistaken ref recurs later in the paragraph. ### Section 4, wording (longstanding) The fee payment structure is set the by the IETF LLC such that the viability of the IETF and the need of IETF participants to work productively within the IETF can be warranted. I don’t think “warranted” is the word wanted here? In this context it means “justified”. Probably you meant something more like “supported” or “ensured”? Come to think of it, “viability” and “need” seem not to quite work together right either. Would it be right to also change “need” to “ability”, making it “... such that the viability of the IETF and the ability of IETF participants to work productively within the IETF can be ensured”? (Also, nit: "set the by the" -> "set by the") So, NEW: The fee payment structure is set the by the IETF LLC such that the viability of the IETF and the ability of IETF participants to work productively within the IETF can be ensured. ## NITS "signification factor" --> "significant factor" (unless you really did intend to use it as technical jargon, but if you did you probably need to go into much more detail to make clear your meaning) Some other nits noted with related comments. ## 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. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
(Revised to again ABSTAIN per the telechat discussion on Feb 2, 2023. The document author said there was consensus to provide no clarifying guidance to the LLC beyond the current text, and that the principle needs to be framed as a “must”) 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. ==[ previous DISCUSS ]== ** Section 3. This document is constraining the behavior of the LLC without explaining the latitude in which they can implement a solution. Specifically, this text is ambiguous: 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? ==[ end DISCUSS ]== ** 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. ** 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.
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
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.
The current text in -06 addresses my discuss concern, hence clearing.