Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

FWIW, I've suggested this several times for a variety of
reasons, including suggestions that the fee be adjusted if
needed to reflect the differences between industrialized and
less- developed countries.  Money on the table is not a really
good measure of actual intent to participate (rather than, e.g.,
to troll) but it would certainly help.

  john


--On Saturday, 25 May, 2019 19:08 -0400 Theodore Ts'o
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 05:33:38PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> 
>> It is not "fairly trivial" to sign up 10 remote participants
>> for 3 out of the last 5 meetings just to game the system;
>> that takes at least a year's worth of planning. That
>> requirement (which has always been in the document) seems
>> plenty high to prevent completely frivolous petitions. And
>> note that even if there were frivolous petitions (and I think
>> it is highly unlikely), this would simply be a DOS attack on
>> recall committees, not a way to remove an AD or IAB member.
>> 
>> Even if you think that the one year of planning is not enough
>> to discourage silliness, there are other potential simple
>> solutions (e.g., half of the petitioners must be non-remote
>> registrants, etc.).
> 
> Another thing perhaps to consider would be to start charging
> at least some amount of money to register as a remote
> participation.  That money can be used to fund and improve the
> remote participation tools. (Since remote participants would
> become paying customers, there would be an expectation that
> quality provided to the remote participants would have meet a
> minimum quality bar --- which is a feature, not a bug.)
> 
> People can disagree about how likely that redchan or gab.com
> participants would try to game the system in the future
> (perhaps it's not likely, but the Linux Kernel development
> community has not been immune from their interest), but
> requiring a real registration fee would no doubt decrease that
> risk.  Futhermore, since we've already decided that it's OK to
> require a registration fee for in-person attendance, requiring
> something similar for remote participants --- since the claim
> is that they should have all of the rights and
> responsibilities pertaining thereto --- would seem only fair.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> 						- Ted