On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Alejandro Acosta
<alejandroacostaalamo(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Vinayak,
First, well done, I fully agree with your email. I have two
questions for you/the group:
1) I wonder if in your proposal you are considering some sort of
charge for remote participation. IMHO I do not think we are yet
prepare to charge.
This was a suggestion but I don't think it will work well. OTOH an
argument can be made that money gathered from charging remote
participants can be used to fund better tools for remote
participation.
2) When you mention that filling the responses (pre-IETF) is
voluntary, so, I guess it's not mandatory, am I right?. We should also
define what pre-IETF is..., it sounds obvious but it can be read as
the pre-WG session.
I am proposing it not be mandatory but I am sure many people will be
happy to help. It should be unobtrusive and be the equivalent of
signing the blue sheets.
I would add to your proposal some kind of activities from local ISOC
chapters.
Did not understand. Can you elaborate ?
-- Vinayak