Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

Brian Trammell <> Fri, 13 February 2015 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775171A1A87 for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:50:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z6KsfsBnf_kz for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:50:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29C11A0AFE for <>; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:50:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2::7ea] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:26:9c2::7ea]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EEF31A02FA; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 22:50:53 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_49DC2752-3797-4066-B161-B883D7569C48"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b4
From: Brian Trammell <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 22:50:53 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Mary Barnes <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
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 21:50:57 -0000

hi Mary, all,

> On 13 Feb 2015, at 22:30, Mary Barnes <> wrote:
> 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.

A requirement (at least at first) to allocate n% of remote participation fees directly to expenses related to the improvement of remote participation would make this a lot more feasible.



>  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.
> [/MB]