--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 09:35 -0400 Alia Atlas
<akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Just a quick aside, but having run an interim WG meeting where
> we did not charge a meeting fee and knowing how significantly
> attendance diverged, I would strongly support at least some
> meeting fee for remote attendance. There's also the key fact
> that the IETF is funded by IETF meeting fees and ISOC.
FWIW, so would I, if only because a large fraction of where that
fee goes (at least given some assumptions about disposition of
registration fee and ISOC money) is to support activities that
have little or nothing to do with actual meeting costs. That
makes a fee for remote participates a matter of fairness, even
though I would hope that we could keep it low enough to avoid
discouraging participation (and maybe differentiate between a
lurker fee and an active remote participant fee). Again,
creative thinking is called for, IMO.
> Maybe
> the remote fee is scaled by region of attendee or such if
> there is concern that it is burdensome.
We already have a fee waiver mechanism. It may need to be more
widely publicized and/or modified to reduce the load on the IETF
Chair if the number of requests rises, but I'd hope we could
avoid region-based formulae (if the reasons aren't clear, I can
elaborate).
> I have attended one meeting remotely - and the experience is
> nothing at all like being at IETF. I can see modifying NomCom
> eligibility constraints slightly - but I really do not think
> that remote attendees will have the necessary experience and
> acculturation unless they have attended a number of IETFs in
> person.
See several previous notes on this list and the Nomcom one about
acculturation. But, as to the difference in experience, I fully
agree that it is very different. There is, however, a bit of a
chicken-and-egg problem: while I think the IESG and other
leadership bodies have good intentions toward remote (including
mailing-list-only) participants, having those bodies be more
accountable to remote folks is probably key to making that
experience better. I have doubts as to whether it will every be
good enough that the average remote-only participant will every
fully understand the culture and actors, but maybe we don't need
that as a criterion for success.
john
>
> Having served on a NomCom a long time ago, I'd say that an
> inexperienced volunteer set gives substantially more strength
> and bias to the non-voting members, who are definitionally
> very familiar with the IETF and the candidates for office.
>
> I am not convinced the trade-off is worth it - but I can see
> the benefit of modifying eligibility constraints to keep
> people eligible for longer. I'd like to see a way to include
> active and experienced remote attendees, but am quite cautious
> on that.
>
> Alia
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Michael Richardson
> <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>>
>> Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended
>> > to an IETF meeting. You have to register, pay and
>> > collect your badge. However,
>> in
>> > remote participation we do not have mechanisms to
>> > verify that
>> somebody
>> > attended to a session.
>>
>> We need to have registration for remote participation, even
>> if we charge zero. I believe that perhaps we need to
>> provide some magic token in jabber
>> or in the NoteWell slide, that needs to be used by remote
>> participants to check-in. They have to do that during the
>> meeting itself.
>>
>> I also ask whether remote participation on the plenary should
>> be "mandatory"
>>
>> We also need to permit judgement calls.
>>
>> --
>> ] Never tell me the odds! |
>> ipv6 mesh networks [
>> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works |
>> network architect [
>> ] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ |
>> ruby on rails [
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman
>> Software Works
>>
>>
>>