Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sat, 28 February 2015 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.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 1E00F1A001A; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 Dj-WiyTZJBkQ; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22e.google.com (mail-qc0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 418011A0007; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qcxr5 with SMTP id r5so19233401qcx.10; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=f+UK6Q3WA/cbcKYSfXOQ0DH9oP9sapvMhIGot/sH4tg=; b=lW0iDmAHVbb9MnpsrGqIRAcGNyzjp2LQ0MrST5DLOVcnO0gjCt4nwYCqNqXO+ZunhO 39ylu25EBoTbnQ819mKwAS97oPrinSD4m4+wIxwhRibzSTFA6ZJ1bohgz+UMzEyOcRSk IvKdyylSYY7cnpFpOHyQ9zGx3oB9lzoLWl6a8wAJlX/b3Aw5Nn9Ca6GqvrJWVNii25kp 1BsIn/E4Z9vejD8EyUVoGjgyMef575jTW1ElW3wgF99qg9ksisuACnE80Lo/QPllgVWW /lnNncF+TET9KKUyyDVBpQhLpdp0xNnCOW3p1I+w/BVWPJc7iFklBROALCqa1BnygfHp oD3Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.217.200 with SMTP id n191mr39603628qhb.29.1425157947460; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.108.183 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost>
References: <54DFBAF6.30409@cs.tcd.ie> <m2h9uokmij.wl%randy@psg.com> <CE39F90A45FF0C49A1EA229FC9899B0525F9E295@USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com> <1A71F670-BACB-485F-8F06-93720563CB9B@kitterman.com> <5D2D7FD3-B9C6-4BD3-BBEE-B2354EFC9996@nominum.com> <CAKHUCzxrLKNSTMYyt1BGO22MbsKtU2NfDvyLEpTZDnudaqgP=w@mail.gmail.com> <10863B07-6E63-470E-A9D8-67FA37A2097C@standardstrack.com> <287EAD95-42D4-449C-8A7C-E8B3A14C8C21@nominum.com> <378E7F5B-3CFB-4F7D-B174-3D58A6451A15@standardstrack.com> <CADnDZ8-s6anrJhvg1RSf1FFqcfHY9SEOT-xgHCSyh48Rct9aVQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150227060834.GI9895@localhost>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:12:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CADnDZ891dssVJhbV1K7Uu4c2eyOzKHWF19FBFq-y3Xh5pJqLLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137324635140805102c7138
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YKmKnGOt6Be7kOaEhYWULJoB5fg>
Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" <diversity@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:12:30 -0000

I don't think IETF is only about individual participation as your message
may mentioned. IETF needs both forces.

On Friday, February 27, 2015, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

>
> Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for
> all.  No one is proposing otherwise.


If IETF charges that channel then it will die, that is its way of
progress.  I know no one proposed charging the list, it is all about
meetings.


> > Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from the
> > [...]
>
> We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
> don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants.  (E.g.,
> if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a
> negative outcome for me, but no one is going to cry me a river for it,
> or even take much notice, and I don't expect any different, nor should
> anyone.)


How does IETF measure quality if not considering average individual
outcome? Usually the receiver determines quality not the server. We need to
know the real average outcome of IETF meeting.

 That example you mentioned was not my meaning of participant-outcome, the
meaning examples of outcome are: 1) one individual in One region wants to
attend one IETF meeting WG session in another region, but he/she must pay
fee for at least one full day. 2) A small company in One region wants to
participate in one IETF meeting day in same region, so it only needs to
send one individual. Both 1 & 2 participations pay the same
meeting-fee, but different outcome of using IETF meeting. 3) an individual
not supported by employer is participating in IETF (full volunteering), and
got WG acceptance of presentation slot. 4) an individual supported by their
company (we know support by naming company name in the IETF, so if it is
named/called then it supports that individual) but was not accepted with
clear reason. Both 3 & 4 are paying same in fees and same outcome (i.
e. good feedback and respond) but different in work support and
different in participation per work.

AB