|
Because the IETF is ostensibly about contributions of individuals, many drafts do not reflect organisations or corporations accurately - particularly when a draft advances an idea that has not been adopted as the corporate party line.
So, billing presenters and adopting a pay-for-play model actually discourages non-corporate new ideas from being presented at all, and helps collapse the fiction that the IETF is not driven by corporate interests.
So, this idea is as unworkable as your let's-redo-RFC-numbering-as-categories-scheme, which I see excludes mentions of the April Fools RFCs that you previously tried to ban. The numbers of RFCs can be chosen for meaning: IPv6 is RFC2460, RFC2468 is who do we appreciate, RFC666 has the warning up front, because you're about to decipher Padlipsky, RFC1984 is orwellian surveillance, RFC2001 was very important monolithic changes to TCP, etc.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 3 October 2014 12:21 AM To: Christer Holmberg Cc: Dave Crocker; Chris Griffiths; IETF Discussion Subject: Re: IETF registration fee increase from 2015 On Thursday, October 2, 2014, Christer Holmberg wrote:
I am sorry to know that you understand increase in cost is a punishment. So do you think the increase of registration fees is punishing attendees of attending?
I see the cost should increase for who use the time slots of the meeting-time, so the IETF adopted IDs and presentations. I say no punishment/fess for individuals but add fees for companies presenting or authoring. I say only companies that have their
name on the IETF drafts or on the presentations.
AB
|