Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

PR here:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-elegy/rfc8989bis/pull/23

Responses inline:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 5:59 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>    Two days of travel and an attendance fee is a relatively large
>    expenditure of time and money
>
> I don’t understand the basis of the “two days of travel” metric.
>

[MD] To be eligible, a volunteer needed to at least travel to the venue,
pick up their badge, and then immediately return home.  This takes about
two days. There are exceptions but I didn't feel it necessary to be
verbose to cover those exceptions.

** Section 2.
>    However, attitudes to business travel evolve, and remote meeting
>    technology continues to improve, to the extent that many longstanding
>    community members choose to participate remotely.
>
> Do we have conclusive data on _many_ “longstanding members now
> participating
> remotely”?  Can we cite this and define what is “many” and “longstanding”?
> **
> Section 2.
>

[MD] s/many/some -- I have no interest in litigating the numbers. I'm sure
we all have anecdotal evidence of this.