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

[Iyedi Goma <[e-mail]>]

hello Loganaden
thanks for raising this point



Le dim. 26 mai 2019 à 09:55, Loganaden Velvindron <[e-mail]> a
écrit :

>
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:09 AM 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.
>>
>>
>> [Speaking as the organizer of an ietf remote hub from Mauritius]
>
> We've been contributed patches for TLS 1.3, IPv6, DNS, http451 in open
> source
> projects during the IETF hackathons. We're also working on a few drafts.
> We have a lot
> of high school and university students among ourselves.
>
> We're OK with paying the registration fees provided that they are
> reasonable.
>
> There are countries such as Madagascar who are trying to organize their
> own IETF
> hubs but their Cost of living is lower than us. What is reasonable to us
> might be expensive
> to them.
>
> Could there be a remote registration fee calculated per country ?
>
>
>