On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 3:46 PM Eric Burger <eburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > IEEE: $3,500 (corporate membership; individuals are <$100 but don’t get to be on the BoG) > OASIS: $4,000 ($1,350 for non-profits) > IETF: Considerably higher than $6,000/year per person, but for argument’s sake, let’s use it. > 3GPP: varies from ETSI ($6,800/year) to ATIS ($8,500) > ITU-T: $32,000, and you don’t get to vote on top leadership > > So, to be a ‘full’ IETF participant, including governance, costs substantially more than some other SDO’s (wonder why IETF lost CTI work?), but substantially less than the ITU-T (wonder why ITU-t has totally lost out on Internet standards?). Well, there are so many defacto standards in the world, and so many ietf standards with near zero adoption and no available code - a strong argument can be made that the IETF is not succeeding very often, even with its lower cost model than other SDOs. What cost model and money spent allocation model results in successful standards? I certainly wish far more was poured into running code than rough consensus > As for “participation in the IETF is free,” it is the same kind of free as open source software is free. Sure, you can download a copy of Linux for free. However, if you want support, it costs 2-10x what some of the proprietary operating systems cost per copy. So much for ‘free’! This is rather off topic, and not a fair comparison. At least with open source, you can fix a problem yourself, or hire someone to do it for you,. If a given new feature or bugfix not on the agenda of the proprietary vendor, you are completely out of luck. There's a song about this I do at every con, latest version is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gx_r5ohYaA > > > On Mar 24, 2019, at 10:21 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 3/24/19 8:46 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> You are under-estimating. > >> That's what is costs to become nomcom eligible for a single year. > >> > >> If you want to remain enfrancised then you have to continue to attend. > >> I think that this is where we need to change the rules. I've written > >> about this before at length. > >> > >> I'm happy with the threshold for becoming enfranchised, but I'd like > >> to lower the threshold to remain enfranchised. > >> Somewhere between 1 meeting/year (1:3) and 1 meeting/3 years (1:9). > >> The 3:5 is satisfied if you go to 2 meetings/year (2:3 > 3:5). > > > > So basically the cost of being "in the club" is around USD6000/year for someone living in North America, perhaps higher elsewhere. Or having a "sponsor" who is willing to pony up that money on your behalf. And that's assuming you're not staying in the conference hotels. It's not cheap. > > > > I wonder how that compares with the cost of having a say in choosing the leadership of some other SDOs? > > > > Regarding recall, I do think the bar should be reasonably high to initiate the process. The primary responsibility for choosing leaders should be with the nomcom; recalls should mostly be for emergencies. But I don't think the criteria for who can sign the petition are quite right. In principle, I think someone who participates actively on at least one WG mailing list, authors or co-authors an internet-draft, or especially someone who reviews WG documents, should qualify. Though in practice, I would be concerned that such a policy would encourage measurable (but perhaps not meaningful) participation just so that certain employers can have their employees sign recall petitions for ADs that they didn't like. There are certainly companies participating in IETF with the resources to do that, especially if the bar were lowered. And I saw enough dirty pool while on IESG to think it's plausible. > > > > I'm not sure what I'd recommend as a fix. But it's not an easy problem to solve. and we could easily do worse than what we have in place now. > > > > Keith > > > > > -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740
