On Mar 2, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net> wrote:
When it's suggested this franchise should extend to remote participants, the
conversation almost instantly starts discussing fees for remote participants.
I'm personally entirely sure that's simply coincidental timing; a more
cynical person might think the two were causally related.
David, when I brought up the idea of fees, for the very first time, I said that
it should be possible for people who do not have employee sponsorship to attend
remotely without paying a fee. Several other people have said similar things
as well. I don't think anybody has contradicted this. So the outcome of
this would be that nomcom eligibility would be less expensive.
So I really don't know why this keeps coming up. I guess there is some real
anger out there about the current nomcom situation. But if that's so, this is
part of the process of changing that. So you might want to consider not
shooting the messenger.
The reason I brought up fees is not that I like fees. It's that running the
IETF costs money, and that money currently comes in large part from attendee
fees, since the IETF doesn't have a membership and doesn't charge dues.