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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Sat, 14 February 2015 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
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 169921A038D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:25:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 rCFD49KdRXtq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) (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 974231A0369 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id uy5so31757922obc.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:25:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=RSr8GqHwZfe78Q662eBvBdOfRzVGL7QqLsLcruwOxuU=; b=cSwxIz1ETYs2Ejn1CjUP7mZIdOwrnjPZ2RsIvYrzp3LBNK3iNw71gfxijLW7S8t6jF SnhPuv6IURe+OJNJJfmdaxfAzhIktd77htB5eWri1ute0LvI32ZNSiK8C9ElR4nD5q7E vfdwT5mQR/wxjrF4ceHUFZSdpSzZ6eLecOIbY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RSr8GqHwZfe78Q662eBvBdOfRzVGL7QqLsLcruwOxuU=; b=OzRYKFPlt/7WN48PJYN4W0eBllya0x6wHDajjN0Q3dDB2HurEDkJZcxpzVVDJFnTyp 3ulU3c9ABOP5D1eMJCnXcIxE/q93av4gxLdWSwVoUf0sbi/4EjxwlSYIOSLnCHfmoQSC K/UxcBP3daBCrmkCv9rumzHIjCrmymsFJk4BRv2asBTz5UPf07q1Imm25GaJ3Ou4+Qo6 VtDzMyuQ8Kiq01vHgmcgO5LfWowjc6Z3fblsFrk7x/tSNMFpJ3Im+xB7XEcE9wALRRp0 wo6iYbXqBRpNP+kT+mRtFkxZs8sNb8lG5/a+m9jKk7ErvvLdpmkDu8zXgHTAoVDI4Di4 C83Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/OZOUzjLjo6FCENvzaZ0REHgDi7ghT4odGpkouV9pNbNJki5Gr3rrV7uIV0KVa5q6edVE
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.66.136 with SMTP id p130mr10460047oia.110.1423956354707; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:25:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.77.71 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:25:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <169B8A9D-9BC7-455A-BF92-4034C22723B4@nominum.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <9772.1420830216@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwZatYW2e4Wk6GXB2U26fsCn8BV2qt-07kHBugiq34zrcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6025.1423672358@sandelman.ca> <CAL0qLwYtE618sA99hgXP-5wk+BYdcXLbiZqd_36OreYQ1LB7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DBD71C.20101@joelhalpern.com> <26803.1423772214@sandelman.ca> <tsla90ikh85.fsf@mit.edu> <37661D4B-1842-4890-88FB-2A7B13CDC884@nominum.com> <CABmDk8m1KuSs8os9V7fcYOJC2O4yMb6dRFer+nEPBTTSHtey9Q@mail.gmail.com> <31891031-4628-49CD-B66C-38A3BD787B70@trammell.ch> <54DE7F09.8030500@gmail.com> <C5FC0DB6-82F8-4C38-ABFD-D5D9A6E65933@isoc.org.ec> <54DE90C6.6030609@gmail.com> <E39AF4E0-58AB-4249-8A37-3D1CD2D5A691@gmail.com> <54DE9844.1010807@gmail.com> <61FBB27B-4EF3-40A0-8981-00EB89698295@isoc.org.ec> <B90F5E29-06C5-41D1-9F31-1BE42382995F@gmail.com> <CABmDk8=YPZ1W2tTOqP23U2PFVLoDh-3+wwmcA8mpta-Y05op2A@mail.gmail.com> <12AEC0C5AEA44D6E886E6E21@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <169B8A9D-9BC7-455A-BF92-4034C22723B4@nominum.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 23:25:54 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzzi3xFTCZfwwnpSZF6hf+LtDWGrVk03EQvBm7cC2_zAMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d65d2b2cc8b050f14ac05
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p8XuhX5nTMyMsNFNauW64f0zwrk>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf <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, 14 Feb 2015 23:25:57 -0000

On 14 February 2015 at 21:20, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> On Feb 14, 2015, at 4:16 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> > Of course,
> > that also has disadvantages in terms of competent cross-area
> > review.  Not simple.
>
> I question whether there is a real opportunity for cross-area review at
> F2F meetings.   The schedules are jam-packed.   As an AD, there was never
> an opportunity to see what other areas were doing, and as an individual
> participant it's hard to know where to go, and there are often conflicts.
>
>
Well, you could always scrap the WG meetings at the IETF weeks and make it
all broad topic meetings, or make the WG meetings actually aimed at
presenting the work to outsiders (ie, deliberately court the people who
don't read the drafts that we normally moan about).

I am, you'll appreciate, thinking aloud here, but if the real value in
face-to-face meetings is in personal contact (agreed) and cross-area review
(wishful thinking), then why not optimize for those cases and use online,
remote, technology for the stuff where it works well?

Dave.