comment 4
++++++++++
IMHO, the draft should include the real reasons why the IETF and IESG decided that IETF 107 is not counted comparing the reason with availability and opportunity.
Firstly, the below is one example of the simple reason of such decision which I think many in community follow this reasoning, with the reply from me.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:05 PM Dave Lawrence <tale@xxxxxx> wrote:
Behcet Sarikaya writes:
> I also supported IETF 107 participation to count but IETF 107 participants
> including myself did not pay registration fee,
> so no pay no vote,
> it is that simple :)
That is simple, yes, but I don't think it really comports with the way
most people see the IETF. Things are a bit more complicated than
that, even if the practical effect has been to make that connection.
Yes, it can be simple, but not that simple, but we can say another simple reason why I want to count 107 meeting, is because the registration fees for this meeting was not available by IETF managers.
If there was an availability of people to pay whom want to be eligible and whom don't want to, then I agree we can say your reasoning of simple that who did not pay then not eligible.
While I agree that in-person attendance is something that is normally
paid for, the idea that we are participating as individuals but very
often have our way payed by our employers has always made murky just
how much contributors are really representing companies. (Yes, I
expect some argument on that point.) Making a pay-to-vote system
brings even more questions about the meaning of the source of the payment.
I will see it from another point of view, we as participants may think in a business way or an engineering way, the best way is to do both ways. All business and companies in technology field are now worth alot of money, which is in reality should not be worth that big, many experts in computer (e.g. bil-gatess) which are business men and women have realised this, and so many have joined volunteering societies like ISOC and others to donate to the world that makes benefit to important needs, also to reach the needed person by technology or Internet. The reason of technology should not be making few/some rich but should be make all needed people with similar opportunity of good health and education. I believe the IETF is for that important reason and important need.
I don't think we want to go down the road of explicitly tying voting
rights to payments.
I agree, specially when IETF 107 had no availability to pay any special case fee.....
Secondly, the draft states some reasons of the decision of counting 102-106 and excluding 107, but it does not state what was available to the participants that are seeking to be part in NomCom. Your draft reason was In-Person meeting understandning/meaning in RFC8713, and some in IETF say that it was the community decision when the 8713 written, but also at that time of writting 8713 the virtual meetings were available in the world, so why they did not mention that clearly. IMHO, it is because meetings are meetings when the manager of the meeting calls it a meeting, so they left it flexible. However, if my interpretation is wrong then it is very simple that this 8713 document gives flexibility but without excluding participants that have given no availability nor opportunity.
Thirdly, if we follow the way of thinking of that reason of the meaning of last 5 meetings were the In-person meeting, because the author and community writing 8713 were agreeing on In-person but they did not have to write it explicitly. Then, why not we think that the authors and community of 8713 decisions are mostly meaning importantly that participants attending the 3 of the 5 last are knowing that such meeting will be counted. Participants awareness of what is counted or not MUST be essential for fair opportunity and availability. The draft is giving chance to participants attending 102 which they knew it was not counted for 2020-2012 nomcom and excluding the human-awareness factor. Therefore, IMHO the 8713 should count 107 meeting.
Best Regards
AB
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
