Re: [73attendees] Is USA qualified for 2.3ofdraft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Stephane H Maes wrote:

> I think that if we aim at being an open standard organization, the
> highest priority must always be to not disenfranchise any IETF participants.

If you really believe that, it follows that meeting fees (and meeting
expenses in general) need to be drastically reduced.  Otherwise we are
disenfranchising those who cannot afford to attend with the current fee
structure.  It also follows that we need to find another model of
funding the Secretariat.

For those reasons I think it's hard to defend the notion that not
disenfranchising participants is the "highest priority".

We're supposed to be an engineering organization.  Engineering is
supposed to be an exercise in pragmatism.

Keith
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]