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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 14 February 2015 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 B36401A0406 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:08:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 yAxCW9iONEmr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53E491A037C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.35] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1YMlov-000C9b-DG; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:08:17 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:08:12 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Remote participation fees [Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY]
Message-ID: <4FEF215ED31836E6592793B0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
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>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.35
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tcj6rH26abiW3DncyVbZPBctxrM>
Cc: 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 23:08:26 -0000


--On Saturday, February 14, 2015 16:20 -0500 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.

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