On Friday, February 27, 2015, Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Participation on mailing lists should continue to be without charge for
all. No one is proposing otherwise.
If IETF charges that channel then it will die, that is its way of progress. I know no one proposed charging the list, it is all about meetings.
> Let us focus on participant outcome (individual or organisation) from the
> [...]
We measure IETF effectiveness and meeting quality in many ways, but we
don't rate *meeting* *outcomes* for *individual* participants. (E.g.,
if I don't get my way on a consensus call, that may [or may not!] be a
negative outcome for me, but no one is going to cry me a river for it,
or even take much notice, and I don't expect any different, nor should
anyone.)
How does IETF measure quality if not considering average individual outcome? Usually the receiver determines quality not the server. We need to know the real average outcome of IETF meeting.
That example you mentioned was not my meaning of participant-outcome, the meaning examples of outcome are: 1) one individual in One region wants to attend one IETF meeting WG session in another region, but he/she must pay fee for at least one full day. 2) A small company in One region wants to participate in one IETF meeting day in same region, so it only needs to send one individual. Both 1 & 2 participations pay the same meeting-fee, but different outcome of using IETF meeting. 3) an individual not supported by employer is participating in IETF (full volunteering), and got WG acceptance of presentation slot. 4) an individual supported by their company (we know support by naming company name in the IETF, so if it is named/called then it supports that individual) but was not accepted with clear reason. Both 3 & 4 are paying same in fees and same outcome (i. e. good feedback and respond) but different in work support and different in participation per work.
AB