On 29/07/2018 22:57, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 29/07/18 01:40, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 29/07/2018 12:16, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> ...> Even paying AD travel costs seems like a bad plan to me.
>>
>> Can you explain why? I don't see any perverse incentive there.
>
> Fairness. ~1000 people travel to IETF meetings, probably some
> more would like to but cannot, and I bet there are many more
> deserving of, and needing, funding assistance than the 15 ADs.
Of course. But it's strongly in the IETF's interest to have the
best people we can get in the steering group, and they're already
providing their time, so I don't think it's unfair to (potentially)
fund their travel. I think it's a different issue than encouraging
general particpants, which is also a good thing of course.
> I'm also unkeen on anything that adds "VIPness" in general.
OK, but I don't perceive travel expenses for people in service
roles as doing that. (We should probably make more of the
fact that ADs are in service roles, to counteract VIPness.)
> As I said though, I'd be fine if an AD needed to apply same as
> anyone else.
>
> And lastly, once someone is an AD (as opposed to putting their
> name forward), it's entirely possible to go find someone who'd
> be willing to help fund your AD travel. (That happened in my
> case, about the middle of my 2nd term. As always, my funding
> sources de-jure were named in the bio on the IETF site.)
I think that's relatively unusual, though.
Brian
