Re: Last Call: Policy Statement on the Day Pass Experiment

On 5/10/2010 1:08 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 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.
Doesnt then also attending a meeting through a video conference
including streaming also qualify? Seems to me both are reasonable
methods of attending these days.

Todd Glassey

> >
> 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

tglassey.vcf
Description: Vcard

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf