Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

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

 



On May 7, 2010, at 10:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> And, yes, a regular IETF participant who attended the last
> meeting on a day pass should have been able to know whether that
> would count for the Nomcom qualification or not.  But nothing
> prevented a person in that position from asking the question
> before he or she registered, in which case we would,
> appropriately, have had this discussion prior to Anaheim.

Well, being such a person, before I registered for a day pass I did not consider the NOMCOM ramifications.  If I had, I think it would likely that I would simply have assumed the existing BCP were in force.

I argue that what the IETF now proposes is not a clarification to the BCP but a change to the BCP.   Applying such changes retroactively stinks.

So, I guess I won't have NOMCOM eligible this year (due to the change, assuming I attend the next IETF under a full registration).

-- Kurt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]