[I have significantly cut down the thread to respond to a couple points.] On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:54 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+i...@elandsys.com> wrote: > > > In principle, one could consider the "do we want this" and "what >> would the criteria be" questions in either order. In practice, >> I think the former question is the more important and should be >> considered first because it informs how we really feel about >> diversity and the role of participants who don't attend a lot of >> f2f meetings. I also believe that, while I might be very >> difficult to come up with a perfect definition of remote >> participation on which we could all agree, coming up with a >> definite that would be at least as good at discriminating >> between actual remote participants and contributors and other >> sorts of folks as the current 3 of 5 rule is at discriminating >> between those who understand the IETF culture and those who >> don't. >> > > In my opinion the easier path is to focus on contributors. The IETF > culture angle is controversial because it is like saying that the person > has to adopt North America culture.
The IETF is the protector of what I'd describe as a "public good". When I talk about IETF culture, part of what I mean is having people understand this and have the desire to protect, preserve, and grow it - rather than loot it for their (or their company's) profit. It might be viewed as helping the "pie get larger" instead of thinking of it as zero-sum game. Knowing what is important to preserve and protect is also important, but can be learned. Alia
