Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom ELEGIBILITY

hi Mary, all,

> On 13 Feb 2015, at 22:30, Mary Barnes 
> <mary(_dot_)h(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ted Lemon 
> <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2015, at 3:27 PM, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> 
> wrote:
> > In the past I've been nervous about giving remote participation too much
> > power in part because I'm worried about how that impacts meeting fees
> > and in part because I value cross-area involvement.
> It's possible that we could collect meeting fees from remote attendees, 
> offering a hardship exemption for those who can't afford it.   That would 
> depend on remote attendance working better than it does now, I think, but it 
> would be unfortunate if the main impediment to making remote attendance work 
> well were that we didn't want to lose meeting revenue.
>
> [MB] I totally agree on this latter point.  I'm very conflicted about 
> charging for remote participation, but perhaps something nominal.  It's also 
> quite possible that if we improve the quality, we will get more remote 
> participants.
A requirement (at least at first) to allocate n% of remote participation fees 
directly to expenses related to the improvement of remote participation would 
make this a lot more feasible.

Cheers,

Brian

>  And, I obviously, would be perfectly happy for IETF to cut back (or do away 
> with) all the food and possibly beverage and not worry, for example about 
> providing IETF breakfast in cases where it's not part of the room rate.    I 
> know that the model is complex in terms of cost of meeting rooms being based 
> frequently on  the amount of food and beverage provided, so I'm not 
> suggesting this is simple or would have a huge impact on overall cost.  And, 
> yes, I know that there would be a huge uprising about this, but we could 
> request the hotels to setup carts, etc. where people can purchase snacks and 
> drinks during breaks as they often do for lunches and perhaps the potential 
> revenue that they can get from that could be factored into the contract to 
> offset the reduced catering request.
> [/MB]

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail