Ok, so the issue now is not about Vegas as an acceptable location, but
rather about which participants have the "right" and "priviledge" to attend
a meeting?
Speaking for myself, but I'm sure this applies to more than just me: I read
the relevant RFCs and drafts ("did my homework"), but I am not "active" by
the strict definitions some have used in this thread (at least not yet). I
pre-paid the meeting fee (in good faith that in return for accepting my
meeting fee, the IETF would provide meeting facilities commensurate to
enable my participation), I paid for travel and went. I followed all IETF
policies and procedures. Therefore, do I not have the "right" to be able to
sit comfortably in a meeting room and be able to hear the speakers, and
participate if I chose to, as much as anyone else?
What happened in San Diego happened. Oops. What we are talking about is
future meeting planning.
If you strictly limit attendance to a meeting room based on previous
participation, you will have no new participation, or "cross fertilization"
of ideas (as someone stated).
Plus, who defines the strict attendance laws? Who enforces them? Who checks
that this enforcement is fair and equal? I submit that this is impossible to
manage, particularly given the demographics of the attendees. Will new IETF
bylaws be created to define this special class (which of course will not
violate public laws)? Will the IETF refuse to accept pre-paid applications
based on these rules, or will they re-emburse delegates their meeting fee
and travel expenses, if delegates are "asked to leave" a meeting for no
other purpose other than because there is insufficient space provided? How
will the IETF handle possible lawsuits stemming from disenfranchised
delegates? The whole idea of even attempting to implement any of this is
simply ludicrous.
Nothing other than fair, open access is practical. Attendance numbers from
past meetings can easily be used to project future attendance levels and
plan accordingly. Attempting to setup "classes" or levels of participants
while collecting meeting fees in advance (in good faith that those paying
the fees will be able to attend the meetings), is foolhardy and fraught with
legal implications.
My last many $$$ worth on this subject.
Matthew Goldman
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:55 PM
To: Matthew Goldman
Cc: 'Keith Moore'; 'Randall Gellens'; Daniel Senie; Michael
Richardson;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning
It makes absolutely no sense to have someone pre-pay a
meeting fee, pay to
travel to a location, attempt to attend a meeting, and be
turned-away.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
it makes a great deal of sense if the purpose of the meeting
is to get
technical work done, rather than to spoonfeed people who
can't be bothered
to read the background material. and we're seeing entirely too much
spoonfeeding in meetings these days - witness the tremendous amount of
precious meeting time that is devoted to presentations of *material
already explained in the relevant drafts*, rather than discussion.
OTOH I happen to feel that it's quite useful if IETF folks who
actively participate in some WGs, drop in on the meetings of other
WGs. we need to encourage cross-pollenation between groups.
but we don't need to encourage non-participants to attend
IETF meetings.
In addition, turning away people who wish to attend seems
counter to the
IETF spirit.
the IETF spirit has always been to include anyone *who does
his/her homework*
Keith