Ted, FWIW, I've suggested this several times for a variety of reasons, including suggestions that the fee be adjusted if needed to reflect the differences between industrialized and less- developed countries. Money on the table is not a really good measure of actual intent to participate (rather than, e.g., to troll) but it would certainly help. john --On Saturday, 25 May, 2019 19:08 -0400 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 05:33:38PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: >> >> It is not "fairly trivial" to sign up 10 remote participants >> for 3 out of the last 5 meetings just to game the system; >> that takes at least a year's worth of planning. That >> requirement (which has always been in the document) seems >> plenty high to prevent completely frivolous petitions. And >> note that even if there were frivolous petitions (and I think >> it is highly unlikely), this would simply be a DOS attack on >> recall committees, not a way to remove an AD or IAB member. >> >> Even if you think that the one year of planning is not enough >> to discourage silliness, there are other potential simple >> solutions (e.g., half of the petitioners must be non-remote >> registrants, etc.). > > Another thing perhaps to consider would be to start charging > at least some amount of money to register as a remote > participation. That money can be used to fund and improve the > remote participation tools. (Since remote participants would > become paying customers, there would be an expectation that > quality provided to the remote participants would have meet a > minimum quality bar --- which is a feature, not a bug.) > > People can disagree about how likely that redchan or gab.com > participants would try to game the system in the future > (perhaps it's not likely, but the Linux Kernel development > community has not been immune from their interest), but > requiring a real registration fee would no doubt decrease that > risk. Futhermore, since we've already decided that it's OK to > require a registration fee for in-person attendance, requiring > something similar for remote participants --- since the claim > is that they should have all of the rights and > responsibilities pertaining thereto --- would seem only fair. > > Just a thought. > > - Ted
