On 5/10/2010 1:08 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > 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. Doesnt then also attending a meeting through a video conference including streaming also qualify? Seems to me both are reasonable methods of attending these days. Todd Glassey >> > > 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 >
begin:vcard fn:Todd Glassey n:Glassey;Todd email;internet:TGlassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf