Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Mary Barnes <> Fri, 13 February 2015 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438C51A1A52 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:30:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8q2GjhrbmjVe for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 739401A0250 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by labpv20 with SMTP id pv20so18799013lab.8 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:30:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4iygkynuWpn/eh8nB+Cf4uQg4tgWd/hwWezP6pq35dY=; b=oQxINnTetfJNp5yRQdkIii+W7vXw0P3+SBFSsvVBumS2P5EuObrfDYSLF09ffgA+fJ aGoDod3Zb5yCJS1+GpxgfxINdYTgyr2CuekC+p2FEShOUECxrPFEQ9aJFLkV43BxHylm aiuF+DA4J6Q7mq6DKc3336mG6c6NFJFQm6P8tSsp4YRk2caMVYyFqqnZQDTyNZpqT9sC e03m6eDaQbt32pJAWKznEdRPZE7iPKxaA7E2SflXffdkgLeuSZU2mCJDtHoTjImOORqh F+nvjvTHwsio0wWuxHsbnKEth5sbySloop0CcTgtvQKUCnVWSN8eEcCcRjSg60A0iNeV H6Pg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id vx8mr10296404lbb.110.1423863035008; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:30:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:30:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:30:34 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
From: Mary Barnes <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176fa1691f2b050efef2f8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Michael Richardson <>, Sam Hartman <>, ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:30:41 -0000

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Sam Hartman <> wrote:
> > In the past I've been nervous about giving remote participation too much
> > power in part because I'm worried about how that impacts meeting fees
> > and in part because I value cross-area involvement.
> It's possible that we could collect meeting fees from remote attendees,
> offering a hardship exemption for those who can't afford it.   That would
> depend on remote attendance working better than it does now, I think, but
> it would be unfortunate if the main impediment to making remote attendance
> work well were that we didn't want to lose meeting revenue.
> [MB] I totally agree on this latter point.  I'm very conflicted about
charging for remote participation, but perhaps something nominal.  It's
also quite possible that if we improve the quality, we will get more remote
participants.    And, I obviously, would be perfectly happy for IETF to cut
back (or do away with) all the food and possibly beverage and not worry,
for example about providing IETF breakfast in cases where it's not part of
the room rate.    I know that the model is complex in terms of cost of
meeting rooms being based frequently on  the amount of food and beverage
provided, so I'm not suggesting this is simple or would have a huge impact
on overall cost.  And, yes, I know that there would be a huge uprising
about this, but we could request the hotels to setup carts, etc. where
people can purchase snacks and drinks during breaks as they often do for
lunches and perhaps the potential revenue that they can get from that could
be factored into the contract to offset the reduced catering request.