At 23:51 -0500 5/6/10, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Dear IESG, I'm conflicted on this one.
That's a statement I can agree with. Superficially, it seems to make sense that 20% (1 day of 5) doesn't count. But...
As others have said - paying full fare and attending one day vs. buying a day pass only means more money being spent. In 1998 I've even done a 1-day attendance having paid the full fare because of scheduling conflicts. Came, made two presentations, attended probably the first DNSSEC deployment meeting (at lunch), and left. Had to fly (US) coast-to-coast too.
What does it mean to understand the culture of the IETF? And does that have to come with physical presence at a meeting? You can get a lot of it via the mail lists. If you know where 3 of 5 IETFs are located, you pretty much have to be tuned in.
Nomcom requires a lot of time and effort, especially in the way the IETF runs the process. It's pretty far-fetched to imagine someone who "can't spell IESG"
- volunteer for nomcom - get selected via the random process - and then have much of a detrimental impact (which is what we are afraid of) - for the duration of the nomcom process In the end, I think that the new policy is a case of "over specification." -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 Discussing IPv4 address policy is like deciding what to eat on the Titanic. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf