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

Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com> Sun, 26 May 2019 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <loganaden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D031200D6; Sun, 26 May 2019 01:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 p38OmbjY2JqY; Sun, 26 May 2019 01:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x142.google.com (mail-it1-x142.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::142]) (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 5DE6F120052; Sun, 26 May 2019 01:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x142.google.com with SMTP id h11so19996871itf.5; Sun, 26 May 2019 01:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=locqMxxBbN1OhPlyAFI25NDp6gZqBzZfvg7DVUAAHGY=; b=ZCedJoks3apsVMRyxjARcFrNXDleHqvTmu6LhapEx+SGHQkyQlg4eSqwZr0nCBDgou 9Xuo3P2iDd4J3fU/z3mcgwbe68QgdE5p6UK21R2I59xsRGKHFCXX73woyIWXvhQDTWlH O5zSv6jfzId3HDdW6PmmHhVZ9gs50pV9oxlR5yK7n2qiOBI+J0yehy9braKPCGMZTdf3 gt1MZuyRaNE8KlU6jqGWfOFkeZ3iFDwdWqErANABn78b9N8OmsTRRP9ZkRhMG0S4fg2y eftguKZ84xVXa33X1OlodDlSFvHMbUOjt7CVz5ZmPoxAPMKKkCIQ91samx7mTsH+c1J7 wfCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=locqMxxBbN1OhPlyAFI25NDp6gZqBzZfvg7DVUAAHGY=; b=iSRa/5OOJnA4AU1HewjuIx8Zf7toTPG1n5n4lEzymtw7LBKTS/jt9DE1WFk+G9HNDC gltrvLzr56yvVFj1SmOysv4pQED1WPky37zI7m5xfWA/XboSg9fbNkHPgAsrasaVMB9n bJcc+yj2DYlmy5T+8IFrgvn4MrIdsb66L/O4Yfzzp2Y+FdvWe5On5t1ZDvgcoe5pvKvK jr5M/fAhoXa3BJY7W+jbVF6g5gxbEdnhRaw4zpMxA/jUMkQL0QsZYRxM91Wi6B33fUoi 40BZEgokJhM35dQnlhv9OEqQiBuN5Z41JK127jE2JO1YRWexh3v0rko2bETlABhjo+b2 av6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU5WnqJZjCc2gpCSFnY12XPeGRLorEsM1Y0Hk5bCI1V4PgAFKEm U7sibVoum7RDvQLztIs8ezhj5x16p/wVtAEAXk0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9wqvEjjiTJWZ99pUTKFFSzahAbj6TlbkfYb+PVuCLwILigBhGRHYynsJCwehVT0HxD2OLIKNyw5ufB83yCYk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:660c:4d0:: with SMTP id v16mr27472291itk.141.1558860857489; Sun, 26 May 2019 01:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f5834466-8f40-42bd-82d8-4dcb7d418859@www.fastmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190509105617.0c08ef60@elandnews.com> <e854adaf-1ead-41d0-95bf-df56cb5a5914@www.fastmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190514234822.0bc461f0@elandnews.com> <15BCE05FEA1EEA6AD0E7E5BD@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20190516103829.11f9fb18@elandnews.com> <E85C84CF-DB0B-410E-A0B2-A7C7E705E469@kaloom.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190518141450.1163e590@elandnews.com> <82E6BD6B-41F4-4827-8E18-3FF63511DFEA@gmail.com> <EC966FE1-C1EE-453F-A66E-61B007293792@episteme.net> <20190525230825.GB10378@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20190525230825.GB10378@mit.edu>
From: Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 12:54:05 +0400
Message-ID: <CAOp4FwTOU481VW0XsWGFOL52+gT2zEL37ut0ysROVWiysyfOVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>, chair@ietf.org, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa3cb30589c69361"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/i_BTSxVFlT1g6XZLo_yHDlU4Zbo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 26 May 2019 08:54:21 -0000

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:09 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> 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 ?