Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]

Randy Bush <> Sun, 15 February 2015 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC881A1A17 for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:59:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sdr_UmMXww8C for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 574021A046D for <>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <>) id 1YMpR0-0004f4-7X; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 02:59:50 +0000
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:59:48 +0900
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Disgust <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 02:59:54 -0000

hi 5304,

> The one thing I haven't heard raised is the risk of disengagement by
> folks who only participate and contribute in particular working groups
> and are not "IETFers" in the sense that many of you are.

you are replying to someone who goes to the meetings and hides in the
noc to avoid the social scene etc.  i go out to the very few wgs where i
have concerns; though have taken to just listening to the audio and
going to the wg if i really need to say something.  it's a form of

real, N way (for N>1) [0], remote participation would do me just fine.



[0] - we have all been here before -- crosby, stills, nash, and young

From: Randy Bush <>
Subject: Re: [vmeet] draft-ietf-genarea-rps-reqs comments
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:36:35 +0900

putting my money where my mouth is ...

for personal and somewhat superstitious reasons, i do not go to meetings
in the southeastern united states.  so for atlanta, i would like
  o to be able to see and hear any of the wg/bof meetings and plenaries
  o when there are slides or movies, i want to be able to see them or
    even pull a pdf to view locally
  o i would like semi-pro video where i can see the speaker, floor
    speaker, etc.  merit used to do a quite good job of this for nanog
  o i would like to be able to make a presentation, with my face visible
    and show slides and hear and answer questions from the floor and
    other remote participants
  o i would like to be able to speak at the virtual floor mic and, if
    possible, have my face shown to the meeting room and to other remote

i do not want to constrain or over-specify how this works.  i.e. how the
speaking stone is handed around, ...  it's gonna be hard enough to do
without requiring 42 kinky sub-features and have know-it-all amateurs
micro-specifying it.

as much as possible the protocols and the software at the remote end
should be non-proprietary.  and it must run on unix, mac, linux, and
optionally ms-windows. :)


ps: shoot the jabber/im as a formal channel.  it's fine for an informal
    ad hoc social s[n]ide channel