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

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020, at 20:12, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi Eric,

>  

>> 

>> Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]> 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
  [e-mail]