On 3 March 2015 at 02:00, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So I really don't know why this keeps coming up. I guess there is some real anger out there about the current nomcom situation. But if that's so, this is part of the process of changing that. So you might want to consider not shooting the messenger.
I'm not shooting the messenger intentionally at least; I am trying to shoot the message.
I would rather avoid any kind of participation requiring fees, most especially any kind of participation we consider to be particularly useful. This implies major changes to how IETF funding works.
I did suggest at one point that if we re-evaluated what we use the physical meetings for, we might continue to charge for them and in addition increase the value to the community from them, but I'm not sure anyone picked up on that, so I'll repeat that here:
We've tended to berate those who turn up to physical WG meetings having not read the drafts; we also say we like physical meetings spanning the entire IETF because this enables cross-area review and discussion.
If the meetings focussed strictly on cross-area review, then each working group meeting would then best be used presenting the state of its work to people assumed not to have read the drafts. This would mean that (for example) Apps people can keep up to date on what the TLS working group are doing without having to pore over drafts which understandably expect a deep understanding of commsec and crypto.
This becomes useful to industry, which can then more easily keep up to date with the current work without the sizable investment of time in tracking a working group. This really is a trade-off worth actual money; but it entirely shifts what we use the meetings for currently (a set of concurrent but disconnected meetings alongside some arguably more important discussions in corridors).
Another discussion we could have is to ask what problem the hallway conversations are actually solving, and whether we could address that in a way that was more logistically and financially inclusive.
Dave.