On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Hadriel,
At 12:31 16-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you, but I'm proposing we charge "large corporations with large travel budgets" slightly *more* than others.[1] I'm not suggesting an overhaul of the system. I'm not proposing they get more attention, or more weight, or any such thing.
That sounds like the ability to pay. It might be worth considering changing the student rate to an academic and open source rate and doubling the rate. I am not getting into a definition of "academic" or "open source" [1]. It is left to the organization to determine whether it is a good idea to be honest or try the weasel words [2] approach.
Regards,
-sm
1. If the IETF is serious about running code (see RFC 6982) it would try to encourage open source developers to participate more effectively in the IETF.
2. weasel words give the impression of taking a firm position while avoiding commitment to any specific claim.
+1 on opensource. Especially in the application / RAI area space. There are several implementers who could benefit from the interaction as well as contribute to making standards better. Standards can be written in ways that can make implementation easier. I have seen several instances where RFCs have unnecessary complex and larger / longer than they should be. Having more implementers in the WG session room is always welcome as it will lead to better implementations and adoptions.
Also since so many opensource contributors work on their own time and money (though not all of them), it would be welcome to give them a concessional rate. So much of the daily software we use / write depends on open source libraries and apps, I think will be useful to have them be a bigger part of the standards process.
A guarded +1 on academics as well. The IRTF has been doing a good job of involving academics. Would love to hear more on their experiences before commenting.
-- Vinayak