On 29/07/18 00:01, John Levine wrote: > I agree that paying ADs, beyond perhaps travel costs to the meetings, > seems unwise. I'd say unwise is a significant understatement. Even paying AD travel costs seems like a bad plan to me. I would support(*) a generic travel-to-IETF fund to which anyone could apply, if that was operated in a very open manner and with an explicit goal of funding people who contribute effectively but who don't have other funding. I'd be fine if an AD needed to use that, so long as their application was evaluated in the same way as anyone else's, and was as public as anyone else's. I'd not be fine if lots of that money ended up funding AD travel. S. (*) When I say I'd support this, I think it'd be a bad plan to try organise such funding in isolation - it'd be much better if that was part of a bigger plan, from the IESG, to try reduce the overall f2f meeting load needed for effective IETF participation.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
