Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 10 September 2020 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB1F3A005E for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.027
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P-myygiPtxkH for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E8A53A0044 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BnMKq3bRBz6G9l4 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1599749519; bh=dLQ7iqe7cS7VRSvRqyq5VPUrPpGTIhtQ+jW+etn17AE=; h=Subject:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SPHZ90fsNlzr+e/nOJwj60knQDgRN4NFTFNtl+Lxq6JJdUyOzPK6u/yZyVXOzBVMp tGiDUcmNXXrOZVPqQFrl+GMM1Zany3fJPNg9Xg9157Wxe063q9rSC0wcnSSwEm55at ccRkTT1rm4/8JquIGipzTM/UpC4hH4oEvNOJi7Sg=
X-Quarantine-ID: <4FkTOPLPQySC>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BnMKq0WlZz6G8kk for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
References: <159962318959.19375.6649774205472330786@ietfa.amsl.com> <943d5d03-9605-35c7-2a3b-3cc9a48ff0e1@gmail.com> <e2afeee6-f5db-4cd1-8371-b163e01a6931@dogfood.fastmail.com> <29455.1599663931@localhost> <CABcZeBMywwqPDSg9wgEGYOdG55d+E8dKYrELasV8meOiXBAFkA@mail.gmail.com> <07ad01d6875a$e70c07a0$b52416e0$@olddog.co.uk> <a149053f-dcde-4c7c-87d8-ebe86102ef44@www.fastmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <f2bdba1d-f91d-16d6-5187-52d6575f55d6@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:51:57 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a149053f-dcde-4c7c-87d8-ebe86102ef44@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/1sj2OECBL70iNxmtDzFakIpugAY>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-05.txt
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 14:52:01 -0000

I thought that the point of the other paths in this document was to get 
around  trying to define how to qualify remote attendees for 
face-to-face meetings.   (Yes, for meetings that are purely remote, 
remtoe participation should count.)

It is not that remote participants are second class citizens.  It is 
that in the mixed environment trying to figure out how to qualify them 
correctly by direct means seemed to hard.  Heck, if it were easy and 
natural we wouldn't need the other paths.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/10/2020 7:12 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020, at 20:12, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>>
>>
>>     Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com
>>     <mailto:brong@fastmailteam.com>> wrote:
>>         > 1) we should not include remote participants for IETF106 and
>>     earlier.
>>         > They did not have an expectation of eligibility.  I hold
>>     this very
>>         > weakly and would be easily persuaded to change my mind!
>>
>>     I was going to post the same thing.
>>
>>         > 2) we should include remote participants for IETF110 (and
>>     any future
>>         > IETFs if this document is renewed) regardless of whether
>>     there is a
>>         > face-to-face component.
>>
>>     I can live with this, but I believe that this is what the other
>>     paths are for.
>>     to be clear: I don't think that we should count remote attendees
>>     when there
>>     is a face-to-face meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Michael. The reason we are making this adjustment is 
>> because we are not having in-person meetings. If we have in-person 
>> meetings again, we can of course decide to include remote people, but 
>> that's not a decision we should take now.
>>
>>
>> [AF] Well, I guess I disagree with Michael once, and you twice.
>>
>>
>> I am fine with not including remote attendees at previous in-person 
>> meetings, but we have to handle future meetings.
>>
> 
> Can I propose the following:
> 
> Remote attendance will be included for IETF110 regardless of whether 
> there is an in-person meeting, as we don't expect that everyone will be 
> able to travel.
> 
> Changing the treatment of meetings after IETF110 is not done by this 
> document - we need to publish a new document anyway in order to extend 
> this experiment, and that new document could choose whatever treatment 
> it likes.
> 
> So - this means that ONLY IETF109 and IETF110 could be sockpuppetted, 
> and that's not enough for eligibility by itself.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bron.
> 
> 
> --
>    Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
>    brong@fastmailteam.com
> 
> 
>