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 <d...@cridland.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Arturo Servin <arturo.ser...@gmail.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.
>
