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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 4:59 PM Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 4:09 AM Abdussalam Baryun <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I think this issue of fees is complicated in IETF and makes participants
>> less, however, there are good reasons to make suitable fees for
>> participation.
>>
>
>
>> I would think that adding remote participation fees is good, because it
>> will make IETF more serious in its responsibilities toward remote
>> participants .
>>
>
> I am against remote participating fees. If imposed there might be many no
> shows in WG session presentations.
> Also people get into the remote use spontaneously.
>

I understand. Are you against it if the fee is 3 dollars per year? it can
help to identify participants because they will pay it, also it can be a
good idea to leave known participants (registered more than two meetings)
and WG-draft-authors without payment.

>
>
>> One of the IETF problem is that it does not want to recognise
>> participants as members or with titles as it only does for IETF ADs and WG
>> chairs. If the IETF does change that then yes it will solve the main
>> problem and make its fees reasonable with rights.
>>
>>
> I think a reasonable action is to reduce daily participation fees which is
> currently half of the full fee, i.e. the current fee is not proportional.
>

I agree but it is the meeting cost problem that increases that, so IETF
managers need to work on attracting more participants and I think that is
challenging.

AB

>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:02 AM Loganaden Velvindron <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:09 AM Theodore Ts'o <[e-mail]> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I agree, it should be reasonable and gain rights,
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>>>
>>
>> I think it is a great idea, and important for IETF.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> AB
>>
>