EXEC SUM: I can live with the proposed option 1
It appears in section 3 that option 1 has been chosen.
Maybe that could be more explicit? I had to compare text.
Snark:
I find the preference of option 1 to be very self-serving of the current
group of people who are well funded, and blessed with good visa-karma to
always be able to attend, and it is apparent to me, have essentially never
been remote.
I believe that *option 3* (count virtual attendance) adheres to the rules
better, and provides better ongoing eligibility to counting towards 2021/2022.
I don't think that we can repeat *this* process if we cancel the in-person IETF108.
** Will eligibility-discuss be allowed to come up with a different way of
** counting IETF107 for the purpose of 2021/2022?
{I appreciate what the last paragraph of section 3 says, and it seems to
support the concept that 2021/2022 could count IETF107 differently.
In particular, this means that we probably need the datatracker to be
loaded with Bluesheet and Registration information. So I think the answer is
** YES, but I would re-word that paragraph to say so}
I would like to know the difference in count between the three options.
To do that, we need bluesheet information loaded to the DT.
I suspect that it is in fact very small (at most five people, excluded by
option 1, but included by 3), and it is for that reason:
**
** I can live with the proposed option 1
**
I found option 2, "do not lose eligibility" to be rather unclear.
I think that what it is saying is that elibility will be 3 out of 6, rather
than 3 out of 5, and perhaps it would better if it just said that.
As such, options 2 and 3 are actually:
2. Count virtual attendance by bluesheet at IETF 107 as attendance.
2A. Change the formula to be 3 of 6, counting
IETF102 through IETF107.
2B. Leave the formula to be 3 of 5, counting IETF103 through IETF107.
Option 1 and 2A benefits people who would normally have been eligible, but
who couldn't be bothered to attend the (virtual) plenary or any of the BOFs.
That's the group of people who have *their* single WG, and they attend it
only, and they don't socialize outside that group, and don't pay attention to
IETF-wide issues.
(to be nicer: maybe their home Internet connectivity sucks, but they
regularly watch the youtube feed from a coffee shop or office, to which they
can not attend)
2A helps people who have attended two meetings, so are new, and independent
of pandemic would not have been able to travel anyway (for reasons of: visa,
funding, parenting)
I think that 2B best recognizes people who are connected to the IETF, who
attend the virtual plenary and BOF, even if they are new and/or forced to be
virtual.
(If you take the union of IETF107 attendance and IETF102 attendance, and
remove the common subset, then the remaining people are the list of people
who might be affected by the changes. Some won't be eligible at all.
I would calculate that, but the IETF107 Attendee list is not available on the site)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
