Re: [Eligibility-discuss] some numbers

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 22 Apr 2020, at 15:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 23-Apr-20 07:31, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 2020, at 1:44 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> The "last 5 in-person IETF meetings" will always be 102, 103, 104, 
>>> 105, and 106 until we have another in-person IETF meeting. The 
>>> result for who ends up eligible would be increasingly non-useful, 
>>> but it is true that we'll have 647 people who will be eligible for a 
>>> really long time.
>>
>> That amounts to disenfranchising all new participants.

Oh, absolutely. I was not indicating that this was a good result, simply 
that it's what the current interpretation of RFC 8173 amounts to and why 
it's important for us to adopt something for remote participants 
generally.

>> I wonder how many relative newcomers who signed the blue sheets for 
>> IETF 107 or a subsequent interim are not eligible.
>
> The problem here (at the moment) is getting a reliable database of 
> those signatures. If Mickey Mouse "signs" the blue sheet portion of an 
> Etherpad for a few sessions, he will become eligible.
>
> We'd need a sign-in system based on datatracker logins. That doesn't 
> sound like an impossible dream, but it's also probably more than a few 
> lines of Python.

As Andy posted over on manycouches 
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/0FUXKXQclMqjbjmNCpJMtImOFQg>, 
if we were using Meetecho, we get most of it for free. The more 
interesting question is whether there's an easy way to do that for f2f 
meetings.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best