Hi Hadriel,
At 05:33 18-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Define "open source developers". Technically quite a lot of
developers at my employer develop "open source", as do many at many
of the corporations which send people to the IETF. Heck, even I
personally submit code to Wireshark now and then. Distinguishing
between "Self-paying" vs. "Expensing" is pretty easy. "Open source"
vs. "Closed source" is a big can of worms.
I'd love to get more developers in general to participate - whether
they're open or closed source doesn't matter. But I don't know how
to do that, beyond what we do now. The email lists are free and
open. The physical meetings are remotely accessible for free and open.
On reading the second paragraph of the above message I see that you
and I might have a common objective. You mentioned that you don't
know how to do that beyond what is done now. I suggested a rate for
people with an open source affiliation. I did not define what open
source means. I think that you will be acting in good faith and that
you will be able to convince your employer that it will not make you
look good if you are listed in a category which is intended to lessen
the burden for open source developers who currently cannot attend
meetings or who attend meetings on a very limited budget.
We can discuss about whether a few hundred United States dollars
makes a significant difference or we can sit by a pool and discuss
about more interesting things. Your colleagues will probably wonder
why you brought more value to your company compared to them. You
could tell them that it is because you like strawberry ice cream as
it is something that wills the void between rational discussion and
all-out thermonuclear war. :-)
At 08:50 18-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I've been told, though obviously I don't know, that the costs are
proportional. I assume it's not literally a "if we get one
additional person, it costs an additional $500". But I assume SM
wasn't proposing to get just one or a few more "open source
developer" attendees. If we're talking about just a few people it's
not worth arguing about... or doing anything about. It would only
be useful if we got a lot of such attendees.
What I proposed might have an impact on just one or a few more
persons. The rest is left to the imagination of the reader. :-)
Regards,
-sm