search

mirjak / draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee

Other
0 stars 3 forks source link

Lars's comment on inconsistencies #25

Closed richsalz closed 2 years ago

richsalz commented 3 years ago

Elsewhere, Lars wrote:

"I'll note that there remain some internal inconsistencies in the document that need to be addressed, for example, the very next paragraph says "regardless of whether the meeting has a physical presence", which implies the principles intend to hybrid meetings, which as discussed on the list they can't (at least not at BCP-level strength.) And further down it says "if remote participation is provided, there should always be a free option", which has similar issues."

richsalz commented 3 years ago

I suggest we merge the existing PR's, publish a new draft, then tackle this.

mirjak commented 3 years ago

We should anyway wait till end of WGLC before we submit the new version, which will be mid of next week.

mirjak commented 2 years ago

This issue depends also on the re-charter. If we include remote participation for in-person meetings into the scope after recharter, I believe we can close without action.

mirjak commented 2 years ago

@larseggert after the re-charter I think we can close this remaining issue and the respective PR?

larseggert commented 2 years ago

Yes, but that is still pending.

I would still encourage a pass over the document to make sure it is then clear everywhere that it does apply to hybrid meetings.

mirjak commented 2 years ago

I made another review and there are 2-3 occasions where we mention the free option and they are all clear that it applies to all remote participation, with or with in-person component. Closing now.