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

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Mon, 02 March 2015 20:55 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 46EF81A1BCF; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:21 -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 UqgclTOnPjNY; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::236]) (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 42CF11A0127; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id h3so13289541qgf.13; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:55:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6jBR3PH1YKbXQ+ml0kLU/IryAb1dv/T3Ic7t0QySMWY=; b=wb+Qhxv+9Nrv9EKxiYXKoX/nQYPVk22zwBqLnk6+fPm99Bb2z0LFBHdvuYx8T2ugb5 qWehv+SEVJaBz1m0wj2ZruZa+qcF10CnijT6USk9kt82CbMAeKevn+gMlzDlhJOrVl97 es5Q9790KxjxDjNJSwnkwJBXIvZzLjNFiLsiUX/gsLYlDaOwo0FBJVSGfwq2j3oOUP4Y Kembk8PLEz2c4DTpdyrn/7UE8IUsRxayxXNABss4WWGaQOXwIQV1v8bvlJSuFK2/tjSo Ttif1nQXPolN2OfqjeZLdjtQFdfyUnJuZ6HmAE23Rx1vDd2QZ9QsRBH1M9dodm6hRsqO HuSw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.97.38 with SMTP id l35mr52516884qge.47.1425329718514; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:55:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.108.183 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:55:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8_SisLx2-0xekSKLBcA=tJgmPGOXGiTWy=yQRTEDLu-DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency, increasing participation (was Re: Remote participation fees)
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a9ca28f5ad10510546f65
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c1stH_rhSsk2_WfLl_FB83pSZwE>
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 20:55:21 -0000

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/03/2015 15:04, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> [2015-03-001 14:15:05
> > +1300]:
> >> Additionally, the IETF interprets each person's input as individual,
> >> whether it is or it isn't. That in itself is quite effective in
> >> disenfranchising employers.
> >
> > Is there an RFC that states this?
>
> The fact that we participate as individuals is documented in BCP 95 (RFC
> 3935).
> The way we evaluate consensus is discussed (informationally) in RFC 7282.
>

If the input is individuals effort then output is individuals effort, very
simple model, so its the groups name which counts. IMHO we may need to
amend that RFC3935 because group-participation is not only input-IETF but
also output-IETF, why the output of IETF includes companies names within
RFCs??? Did this RFC ignore participation in the IETF output?? The IETF
needs to clarify its output as individual, so that it is only individuals
effort output and not company effort involved. I tried to see that
exclusion but did not find that. Therefore, that RFC3935/7282 does not
exclude companies support from the interpretation of its output.

AB