On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
Hi Hadriel,
At 12:31 16-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you, but I'm proposing we charge "large
corporations with large travel budgets" slightly *more* than others.[1]
I'm not suggesting an overhaul of the system. I'm not proposing they get
more attention, or more weight, or any such thing.
That sounds like the ability to pay. It might be worth considering
changing the student rate to an academic and open source rate and doubling
the rate. I am not getting into a definition of "academic" or "open
source" [1]. It is left to the organization to determine whether it is a
good idea to be honest or try the weasel words [2] approach.
Regards,
-sm
1. If the IETF is serious about running code (see RFC 6982) it would try
to encourage open source developers to participate more effectively in the
IETF.
2. weasel words give the impression of taking a firm position while
avoiding commitment to any specific claim.
+1 on opensource. Especially in the application / RAI area space. There are
several implementers who could benefit from the interaction as well as
contribute to making standards better. Standards can be written in ways
that can make implementation easier. I have seen several instances where
RFCs have unnecessary complex and larger / longer than they should be.
Having more implementers in the WG session room is always welcome as it
will lead to better implementations and adoptions.
Also since so many opensource contributors work on their own time and money
(though not all of them), it would be welcome to give them a concessional
rate. So much of the daily software we use / write depends on open source
libraries and apps, I think will be useful to have them be a bigger part of
the standards process.
A guarded +1 on academics as well. The IRTF has been doing a good job of
involving academics. Would love to hear more on their experiences before
commenting.
-- Vinayak