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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 10 September 2020 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 18C043A090C for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Y--ZqrTAYz9e for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8C523A08B6 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5322A389ED; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:04:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lAUunqq1ki9x; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:04:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42846389A5; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:04:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF75212; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:25:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <f2bdba1d-f91d-16d6-5187-52d6575f55d6@joelhalpern.com>
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> <f2bdba1d-f91d-16d6-5187-52d6575f55d6@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:25:35 -0400
Message-ID: <6959.1599751535@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/AENC8xqR2qUwlG5RZufbnMruBHU>
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 15:25:43 -0000

Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
    > 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.)

Exactly.  And then we have virtual interim meetings.  They should count,
right?

But, a major point of the original 3-in-5 in-person counting was about
understanding culture, and that doesn't get communicated that well online.

    > 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.

+1

Bron's IETF109/IETF110 compromise is fine with me.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide