On 2018-07-29 02:16, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > 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. > Agree. As somebody who was unable to get support for a nomination let me say this: it was never about the direct _monetary_ cost but about the time spent away from $dayjob. Having a travel fund ... maybe... but probably best spent on new talent instead of keeping old farts around. Cheers Leif
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
