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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 09/09/2020 23:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> > 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.
> 
>     > So they are second-class participants?
> 
> Yes, they are.  

I very strongly disagree. Nobody should be considered or
called second-class.

> Given that they aren't WG chairs, and haven't published an
> RFC, then they might not really have good enough insights into the culture
> and operation of the IETF.

Terming that second-class seems pretty tin-eared to me. I
guess it might be that the term is more or less loaded for
some of us.

But I also disagree with the logic. Just because there is a
f2f happening that does not mean that a person remote for
that is any less experienced. Thanks to the vicissitudes of
life, I was remote for two meetings whilst an AD.

Cheers,
S.