On Fri, 14 May 2010, Michael StJohns wrote:
My $.02 worth.
1) For the purposes of the upcoming Nomcom, the decision to not count a
day pass as "attending" is reasonable and timely and within the purview
of the IESG (or for that matter the IETF chair) to decide.
2) The IESG/IAOC can choose whether or not to offer such a day pass as
that is an administrative issue, but the longer and broader discussion
on whether or not a day attendee is an attendee for Nomcom purposes
should still happen.
Or whether a full week pass is any more meaningful.
3) The IETF depends upon the revenues generated from IETF attendance
and, as a matter of incentive, there should be a decrease in benefits if
there is a decrease in revenue to the IETF. In this case, it may also
be reasonable to eliminate "student" attendees as eligible for Nomcom
membership.
The assumption that folks WANT to participate in the NomCom vs. volunteer
out of a sense of duty to the organization. Purchasing full meeting
attendance so one can volunteer for the NomCom and actually be selected
through the random process is a lot like playing the lottery, etc. I can't
imagine that most folks who would be on the edge re. day pass vs week pass
would really be motivated to spend the extra money so they might be
on the NomCom.
4) The discussion on whether or not you get enough IETF culture while
attending on a day pass is a rat hole. I would submit that I (and
probably anyone with more than a 3-4 years or IETF attendence) have
accumulated enough culture over my large number (73) of meetings that my
cultural inculcation would not suffer by my attending solely on day
passes for the next 5 years or so. It really is all about trying to
avoid providing an incentive for attendees to make a choice that reduces
the IETF's meeting income.
It is not about income, it is about facilitating participation. I continue
to assert that purchase of a 5 day pass doesn't have much correlation
with learning of the IETF culture, and more important seeing potential
new leaders interacting with their peers and expressing their professional
opinions.
5) If the community decides that day attendees are full attendees for
the purpose of Nomcom, I would recommend that the IESG/IAOC eliminate
the day pass option as a matter of IETF sustainability.
You have no basis for that recommendation other than speculation. My
speculation is that day pass attendance will increase overall revenue by
encouraging folks w/o any reason to be present for 4.5 days to attend
and participate where it is important. Furthermore, a number of folks
have suggested allowing multiple day passes which would further
increase revenue.
In any case, the objective should be to encourage qualified participation
in the IETF processes. Adding financial barriers will only server to
reduce participation.
Some additional comments made by others in a discussion between former
Nomcom chairs (I'll let them identify themselves) on this issue:
o My concern with the day pass is that one is unlikely to meet people
outside one's relatively small universe.
You are still arguing a question that hasn't been raised ... that is what
actually constitutes knowledge of the IETF culture, people, etc. My
agrument is that paying full fare really has no relation to that question.
I paided full fare as recently as Vancouver, attended exactly two sessions
on two days of one working group. That full fare DID NOT qualify me to
help select future leaders via NomCom participation.
o Whether we include day passes or not I suspect isn't going to make
_that_ much difference in the grand scheme of things. Someone whose
employer isn't willing to spring for the full week, and more
importantly, be willing to let the engineer stay for more than single
day, is also probably not going to be supportive in letting said
engineer put in the necessary time to serve on Nomcom....
So the argument is moot ... they won't volunteer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf