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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sun, 01 March 2015 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 AAFC71A0262; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 09:08:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.559
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 jPjw7Pbn1u8Q; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 09:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B1261A000F; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 09:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (unknown [50.189.173.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 334F98A031; Sun, 1 Mar 2015 17:08:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 12:08:08 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
Message-ID: <20150301170808.GB6463@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <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> <54F24BFB.1040101@cis-india.org> <20150301020756.GD6345@mx1.yitter.info> <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54F275CC.8090007@cis-india.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_BYE7vFqjP24vVIBMJSYNjAoo5I>
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: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 17:08:12 -0000

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 07:43:32AM +0530, Pranesh Prakash wrote:

> But because it enables you to participate more steadily in the IETF than
> someone who is not similarly funded.  That ability to participate has all
> manners of implications, including the ability to be chair of WGs, etc.

Yes, of course.  The fact that I grew up in a middle-class suburb in
Canada as opposed to an Native Canadian Reservation means that my
education was better funded too.  And the fact that I make a pretty
good salary and live (though reluctantly) in a low-crime town in New
England instead of struggling to keep out of the way of civil war in
Syria also gives me such abilities.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting one could do about all of this.
To bring this back to the topic at hand: currently, remote partipation
in IETF meetings is free, with the cost that such participation
doesn't get counted for Nomcom eligibility.  There've been suggestions
that we ought to figure out ways of allowing such remote participation
to count at least in some measure, but if we're going to do that then
it seems only fair that some of the burden of remote-attendance
support be shared by those remote participants, which would mean that
participation costs would actually go up for such participants.

It therefore seems to me that the best we can do in these cases as
participants is to be aware of the gaps in participation and attempt
to reflect the interests of those people too.  Do you have an
alternative suggestion?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com