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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, February 14, 2015 16:20 -0500 Ted Lemon
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Feb 14, 2015, at 4:16 PM, John C Klensin
> <[e-mail]> 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.

I agree as far as actual reviews are concerned.  But, at f2f
meetings, at least some of us (almost certainly not including
ADs) take the opportunity to drop in on WGs we don't follow
carefully and do other things that facilitates reviews on other
occasions.  Without that, expecting a careful and in-depth
review of a document that is completely unfamiliar by someone
from a different area of work and perspective (and not a
designated area reviewer or equivalent) show is, I suspect,
fairly unrealistic.  

One could get most of that same sort of exposure remotely, but
it requires more effort.  It would also not be consistent with
my hypothesis of a technical expert/ designer remotely
participating in a single WG discussion or two without being
tied up for the week.

It would also help remote participants stay in touch if our
minutes contained real WG and Area status reviews, but doing
that well is hard work and another kind of expense.

    john