Re: Charging remote participants

[Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@xxxxxxx>]

> From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 08/25/2013 08:40 AM
> 
> ...
> The reward/motivation from IETF to participants
is to 
> acknowledge in writting their efforts, which I think still the IETF
> management still does not motivate/encourage. 

I COMPLETELY disagree with this.  The reward/motivation
for participation (remotely or in person) is to have your comments, ideas,
suggestions,...  TAKEN SERIOUSLY, even if the eventual decision goes
"against you".

Of course, that presupposes that  your comments
are sensible, and show that you understand the context.

It is the specific authors, and not "the IETF"
that determines who gets mentioned in the "Acknowledgements"
section.  In the working groups I am involved with, I have found the
authors to be very generous with acknowledgements.  Sometimes I have
been acknowledged when my comments were primarily editorial and clarification,
without actually adding any new ideas.  Of course, there have been
one or two  times that I have thought I made a contribution, but didn't
get mentioned.  That is the author's choice.

As my mother used to say "What you lose on the
roundabouts you gain on the swings"

>  
> IETF Remote Participants (IETFRP) SHOULD charge
the IETF not the 
> other way, because still the IETF ignores some IETFRP efforts (or
> even hides information that should be provided to the diverse community).

 
I have never felt "ignored" as a remote
participant.  Sometimes misunderstood because there is little opportunity
to expand and explain when you are remote.  But never ignored.

I have no idea what you mean by "hides information".
 Are you suggesting that someone is censoring mailing list posts?

Janet