Hi,
I am strongly opposed to a remote meeting registration process and remote
meeting fees.
This increases the financial bias towards large corporate control of IETF
standards.
I like the IETF because anybody can comment on a draft or write a draft
without
paying fees.
I think there could be several ways to prove one has been recently involved
in the
IETF. IMO I-D or RFC authorship shows more involvement than just showing up
at an IETF. People who never read, write or comment on any drafts can be
more nomcom-qualified (by attendance metrics) than somebody who worked on
10 drafts
over the same time span.
Andy
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca
wrote:
Arturo Servin <arturo(_dot_)servin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> Today it is possible to verify that somebody attended to an IETF
> meeting. You have to register, pay and collect your badge. However,
in
> remote participation we do not have mechanisms to verify that
somebody
> attended to a session.
We need to have registration for remote participation, even if we charge
zero. I believe that perhaps we need to provide some magic token in
jabber
or in the NoteWell slide, that needs to be used by remote participants to
check-in. They have to do that during the meeting itself.
We could require room registration for the XMPP ("Jabber") chatrooms, and
have remote participants fill in an equivalent of the blue sheet in order
to join the room.
I'm not sure if the current XMPP implementation supports this, but it will
work in principle with a number of existing deployed implementations.
(And, note, we no longer have to care about Google Talk interop, which
makes things easier).
Dave.