On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:09:53PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
illness forced them to participate remotely. I'd personally rather
we expand "attend" to include remote attendance rather than narrow
it to exclude folks who didn't pay for a whole week.
I've already said too much in this thread, but while I might happily
agree with any plans to diversify the way we define "attend", we
simply cannot do that on anything like a permanent basis without
changing the relevant RFC. So we need to separate that issue from the
immediate issue of who might qualify for the NomCom _this year_. We
need to separate the issues because the latter is an immediate
practical concern, and it's really just more important that we have
some rule than that we have a perfect one. Please let us not conflate
these two matters.
Andrew's right. Sorry for conflating the two. For this specific issue,
I disagree with the IESG's proposal to declare use of a day pass did
not qualify as "attending" the IETF meeting for the purposes of
NomCom eligibility.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf