Hi Nalini,
At 23:37 12-07-2016, nalini(_dot_)elkins(_at_)insidethestack(_dot_)com wrote:
I think that funding, how to get more funding, and what to do with
it is one of the most important conversations that we could be having.
[snip]
This is not so dissimilar to what happens at the IETF. If you work
for an organization which will send you consistently to IETF (or you
have access to adequate personal income) and if you can spend the
time out of your work week that is required to participate remotely,
then you can become involved and active. IMHO, it is MUCH harder
to be involved and to create the networks of contacts that are
required to create thoughtful protocol standards without physical
attendance. I know that some have done it. I am saying that for
most it is much harder. And, yes, some children manage to rise
above the impacts of poverty as well. Most don't.
[snip]
My concern is with people who are not here and who maybe SHOULD be
here both for their own growth and eventual contributions and for
the perspective they can add to the conversations at the IETF which
are so important.
The discussion is about the fourth point: "Evolve IETF sponsorship
models to focus more on our work than meetings" and probably the
first point: "Make it easier for people to be involved in the IETF".
At the individual level there isn't a funding need if the company a
person works for is already paying for a person to attend an IETF
meeting. As a SDO, does it benefit the IETF to fund persons not
covered in the previous sentence? The concern (see quoted text)
mentions eventual contributions and for the perspective. Why is that
so important now? For what it is worth, IETF participants, excluding
one or more, did not support that in 2013.
I am going to use some words that are overused: trade not aid. That
approach is better than philanthropic funding.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy