Hi Adrian, John,
At 01:52 AM 21-03-2019, Adrian Farrel wrote:
People signing a recall petition are not making judgements. Those
judgements are made by the recall committee.
Yes. I gather that the participants interested in the topic are
familiar with due process. As a point of information, over the
years, there was only one attempt to use the mechanism.
There are two key points to these rules:
- To be able to handle extreme and exceptional conditions correctly
- To present a face that is open, welcoming, and fair
Yes.
The rule was written before registering for remote participation was a thing.
Yes.
At 06:35 AM 21-03-2019, John C Klensin wrote:
The observation was made years ago that we couldn't do anything
with remote participants and recalls because remote participants
didn't register and because registering them would be an
intrusion on the privacy of those who just wanted to quietly
That was the answer given many years ago.
Might have been true a decade or so ago although I thought it
was questionable even then because we had a few people who were
attending few meetings f2f but who were much more clearly
contributing in obvious and important ways that most of the
people who showed up at meetings to enjoy the social contacts,
enjoy fine lunches and dinners, contribute registration fees to
the pot, and otherwise warm seats and do email.
One one hand, the IETF is saying that "you can contribute
remotely". One the other hand, that contribution [1] is not viewed
as significant if the person(s)cannot attend those fine lunches and dinners.
I do appreciate both of you for commenting openly on the
topic. Please consider the following question as optional: What is
the rationale for requiring a person residing in an emerging economy
to rely on a person who can contribute registration fees to seek an
avenue for redress?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. The word is used loosely.
