RE: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Sun, 15 February 2015 05:22 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA23E1A0178 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:22:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2-IrOhbcTgTI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:22:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AA681A0146 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:22:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.111.105] (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B52FC400BD; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 23:22:08 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1423977728; bh=8lJ5OkvB+oSKiqqmYq4hR8ABXZXUC2hodRKWkksDKdU=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:From; b=nU95vOnlNSHL/Cf77nU4jjuaQ5YkMhVCCkGYpWyP57jhO9sMarvY2OMrlpwOYxQ/R xtaUHNWmZjpinCY3gpOms6ECeagsJEfPHvnISRWIbmGrYR9dMttJM6La93ypjYmpMS 7DlBEa5FXsJS53B3d82jmd+mi/OFQFk2GJH0Dm+I=
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0525F9E295@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DBD71C.20101@joelhalpern.com> <26803.1423772214@sandelman.ca> <tsla90ikh85.fsf@mit.edu> <37661D4B-1842-4890-88FB-2A7B13CDC884@nominum.com> <CABmDk8m1KuSs8os9V7fcYOJC2O4yMb6dRFer+nEPBTTSHtey9Q@mail.gmail.com> <31891031-4628-49CD-B66C-38A3BD787B70@trammell.ch> <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <C5FC0DB6-82F8-4C38-ABFD-D5D9A6E65933@isoc.org.ec> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com> <E39AF4E0-58AB-4249-8A37-3D1CD2D5A691@gmail.com> <54DE9844.1010807@gmail.com> <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec> <B90F5E29-06C5-41D1-9F31-1BE42382995F@gmail.com> <CABmDk8=YPZ1W2tTOqP23U2PFVLoDh-3+wwmcA8mpta-Y05op2A@mail.gmail.com> <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <m2h9uokmij.wl%randy@psg.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0525F9E295@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: RE: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 00:22:02 -0500
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NvL2MJAOkGaquG9x-6OmRkTlceI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 05:22:11 -0000


On February 14, 2015 9:33:27 PM EST, "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <MHammer@ag.com> wrote:
>The one thing I haven't heard raised is the risk of disengagement by
>folks who only participate and contribute in particular working groups
>and are not "IETFers" in the sense that many of you are. You may find
>that many remote contributors to working groups that are not sponsored
>by enterprises will find other venues to contribute their time and
>energy. 

That and it would seem odd to me to periodically move the work of an open standards group completely behind a paywall. 

Personally, I'm glad to participate here and there as time and interest allow. There's plenty of other things I could contribute to though. I think it's not very likely I'd pay to participate remotely. 

Scott K