Re: [Diversity] Moving to meeting attendance NOT required

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 16 June 2016 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71AC12DA1B for <>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.216
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=SnHRjp1F; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=zr4Fa2p8
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oJ9t2cauPWJf for <>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58F312D7D8 for <>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5GHJDIJ010114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1466097566; x=1466183966; bh=sxcHcpwNAM6ll2gX2OjBpwMgSyUUAvNjvUCdr4AQ7Js=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=SnHRjp1FS1gumw8mffh+qw+tMf/2Ngj7qe3Zh/A+R7IjM+mgkq5akph5K6t772DDr cY4VFKRE42dLwKD0pCI0c9zhIPunVbk6DQBsS7sy6VnDboUa4nsrBgHFw9O65R8CP2 hObCRVo2hNxGvpNL8dn5JimkjLKzN4gotf6LcNSM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1466097566; x=1466183966;; bh=sxcHcpwNAM6ll2gX2OjBpwMgSyUUAvNjvUCdr4AQ7Js=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=zr4Fa2p8bLloNScbOzokbmHgnNdhAoHcv0wRO0CKwqv9KsOCtJoXpbB2sfVhYoDKV C4vidEVD1hZNGC+QgUJvTwQP/WslNJxHeAWQRShpAS76n63UwHVA8yxFlOEU+dPXyi ID7aikQaQZLPFtn0hw4TJMLwba5cTfMKrpvi/LIY=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:59:03 -0700
To:, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <08f301d1c7d7$9630c650$c29252f0$>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <3d180fde-057a-aa7! b-0483-ae8429a16e1d@dcr> <> <08f301d1c7d7$9630c650$c29252f0$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Moving to meeting attendance NOT required
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:19:44 -0000

Hi Adrian, Spencer,
At 07:01 16-06-2016, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>I think SM is actually in a really good position to talk to this 
>precise point on attendance. He has been active in the IETF for a 
>long time and has achieved stuff. Yet he is not often physically at 
>IETF meetings. I'd like to hear his views, but my guess is: being 
>there is nice, interesting, and helpful, but not being there does 
>not prevent real work from being done.

The simple answer to that being there is nice, interesting, and helpful.

I have served as Working Group Secretary, Document Shepherd, Working 
Group Chair, Team Lead of a Directorate, and Document Editor.  I am 
also a RFC Author.  Some of the considerations for being there are to 
avoid internet connectivity issues, time zone difference, or if the 
person is expected to be there.

S. Moonesamy