On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Vinayak, > First, well done, I fully agree with your email. I have two > questions for you/the group: > > 1) I wonder if in your proposal you are considering some sort of > charge for remote participation. IMHO I do not think we are yet > prepare to charge. This was a suggestion but I don't think it will work well. OTOH an argument can be made that money gathered from charging remote participants can be used to fund better tools for remote participation. > 2) When you mention that filling the responses (pre-IETF) is > voluntary, so, I guess it's not mandatory, am I right?. We should also > define what pre-IETF is..., it sounds obvious but it can be read as > the pre-WG session. I am proposing it not be mandatory but I am sure many people will be happy to help. It should be unobtrusive and be the equivalent of signing the blue sheets. > I would add to your proposal some kind of activities from local ISOC chapters. Did not understand. Can you elaborate ? -- Vinayak