On 1 March 2015 at 15:26, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your position seems to be that persons with more resources can, if
they choose to use those resources, have more influence than those
with less resources.
I suspect it can be reworded to a simpler statement.
Currently, to obtain "NomCom eligibility" (which means more than simply eligibility to volunteer for NomCom), it requires actual money being spent either by, or on behalf of, the participant. A little under $1500 needs to be paid to the IETF each year (based on $700 for each meeting, 3 out of 5 meetings, and the requirement that the remaining meeting would probably need to be attended also making it average two meetings per year). That ignores the additional costs of travel and accommodation.
When it's suggested this franchise should extend to remote participants, the conversation almost instantly starts discussing fees for remote participants. I'm personally entirely sure that's simply coincidental timing; a more cynical person might think the two were causally related.
There's soft implications of being well funded (I suspect, John's comments notwithstanding, that it is essentially impossible to have a reasonable paid job and act as AD in one's "spare time" these days), but really, it isn't a matter of trying to solve these issues absolutely or not at all - it's actually acceptable to consider ways of simply reducing the gap, even if we admit we cannot eliminate it.
Certainly, imposing remote participation fees doesn't leap out at me as a way to *improve* the disparity.
Dave.