Hi Alissa,
Thanks for the response. I'll comment inline.
At 07:45 AM 09-07-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Will the "high-level principles" be about hopes or ambitions to
achieve something?
I don't understand this question.
First, I'll quote an extract from RFC 8719 as it may help to explain
what I am asking about:
"Implementation of the Policy
IASA should understand the policy written in this document to be the
aspiration of the IETF community."
The word "aspiration" can be interpreted as being about hopes or
ambitions. Based on my experience from another organization which is
not related to the IETF, policies are not intended to be
aspirations. The rationale for that is because a policy is there to
guide decision-making instead of leaving it to the whims of the
person(s) authorized to take the decision.
No, the closure of MTGVENUE was done knowing that a new group with a
different remit might need to be formed.
Ok.
Does the cadence of meeting scheduling affect NomCom eligibility?
Yes.
Did meeting planning have an impact on NomCom eligibility?
Yes, see
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8788.html>https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8788.html.
Before the pandemic, there were two categories of IETF community:
(i) people who are charged an attendance fee to attend IETF meetings
in person.
(ii) people who are not charged an attendance fee to attend IETF meetings
remotely.
Since the pandemic, the IETF has been unable to hold IETF meetings in
person and it switched to a fully only meeting [1]. People in
categories (i) and (ii) are charged an attendance fee. However, the
people in category (ii) are not being offered the same treatment as
the people in category (i). In the country [2] where I reside, the
exclusion of people in category (ii) eligibility would be considered
as discrimination.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/BPNyTxka355XbY03VSBtjl5y_So/
2. It could be different in other countries.
