Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 15 November 2010 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466D528C0E3 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:21:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.465
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C5NcyZr1hzhg for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:20:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 591C63A6908 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:20:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 30378 invoked by uid 0); 15 Nov 2010 13:21:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2010 13:21:32 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=vEMnURu7fgSEGp4KC5p+LtMwAAokOkh2UskQw3PH3Xt4O6DlQnXGZ91hNiebJrQEbZ7xtLIRQhQpROYYDqDhgkRtFO3+fOEMJ5+GG1LtM4c1spQzizVugBqXzZLy+qPG;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1PHz00-0005g4-Bh; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 06:21:32 -0700
Message-ID: <4CE133DC.30209@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:21:32 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Xiangsong Cui <Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
References: <1106719229.799545.1289526328086.JavaMail.root@sz0152a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011112007060.12026@pita.cisco.com> <201011122308.oACN89K1013100@sj-core-1.cisco.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011121616000.12606@pita.cisco.com> <fdd5875b1cd04.1cd04fdd5875b@huawei.com> <4CE06071.8000805@labn.net> <082301cb846d$107e1070$317a3150$%cui@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <082301cb846d$107e1070$317a3150$%cui@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:21:00 -0000

Xiangsong,
	I suspect you may have misunderstood me.  I'm endorsing the old 
practice of letting in (to meetings) any who wish *without* payment or 
badge.  Sure they won't be able to go into the terminal room, but that 
isn't a significant issue.  Them eating the snacks could possibly turn 
into an issue, but it hasn't to date.

Lou

On 11/14/2010 9:30 PM, Xiangsong Cui wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Don't misunderstand me, although I'm telling a fantastic idea.
>
>> Maybe I'm just old fashioned, at least from an IETF perspective, but why
>> not just let them "drop in", i.e. attend the meeting without a badge?
>
> I didn't say attending without a badge, I just said some guest may attend
> IETF meeting wearing GUEST BADGE.
> Notice "the applicant should explain why he/she should be issued the guest
> badge there" in my message.
>
>> I've always felt this served the community well and is not really
>> different from our mailing list subscription policy.  (I hope no one
>> proposes to start charging for that, but if you take the current
>> trend/discussion a few steps farther, that's where we may end up!)
>
> I didn't oppose charging for meeting, I just suggest we may allow a few
> guest to attend IETF meeting (without fee) and myself would like to pay the
> normal meeting fees.
> For example, if IETF chair (or WG chair) wants to invite somebody to give
> IETF community (or specific WG) some speaking during the meeting week (maybe
> like Thursday speaking or some others), should the invited guy also register
> and pay the money for the speaking? Maybe HE/SHE doesn't attend any other
> IETF meeting.
> So here I just said, there MAY be the possibility that Guest can attend the
> meeting, I didn't say there MUST some guys who can attend IETF without fee
> payment.
>
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> BTW There was one IETF, perhaps Columbus, where I attended just one day
>> and I still paid the full amount.  Although, it cost a bit less, back
>> then. IMO contributors will "do the right thing", and we should make it
>> easy to be a lurker as they may turn into a direct or indirect
> contributor.
>
> You did contribute to IETF community, maybe some other friends paid full fee
> but didn't go to the meeting, they even didn't get any IETF service
> (network, beverage, etc.).
> All of you deserve my respect.
>
> Regards,
> Xiangsong
>
>
>
>
>
>