On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote: > >> illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather >> we expand "attend" to include remote attendance rather than narrow >> it to exclude folks who didn't pay for a whole week. > > I've already said too much in this thread, but while I might happily > agree with any plans to diversify the way we define "attend", we > simply cannot do that on anything like a permanent basis without > changing the relevant RFC. So we need to separate that issue from the > immediate issue of who might qualify for the NomCom _this year_. We > need to separate the issues because the latter is an immediate > practical concern, and it's really just more important that we have > some rule than that we have a perfect one. Please let us not conflate > these two matters. > Andrew's right. Sorry for conflating the two. For this specific issue, I disagree with the IESG's proposal to declare use of a day pass did not qualify as "attending" the IETF meeting for the purposes of NomCom eligibility. regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf