On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 2:57 PM Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 14, 2025, at 12:20 PM, Dang, Quynh H. (Fed) <quynh.dang= > 40nist....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Maybe consensus calls can only be made and completed at the in-person > meetings ? > > The problem with in-person (or even virtual at the in-person meetings) is > it then becomes even more of a pay-to-play proposition to participate. > > Not all valuable participants have an organization funding their > participation at IETF. I believe we still want to encourage such > participation, not discourage it. >
I believe your point has been accepted as a very good point over the years. Yes, we need to find ways and to create more opportunities for more people to contribute to the IETF's works, especially the students and early career engineers/scientists. I can't think of any method that works well for all. The individuals who don't join in the IETF meetings (virtually or in person) can share their knowledge and thoughts over emails. I believe it is true that there are people who want to, but the financial cost prohibits them from joining in an IETF meeting either virtually or in person. For the people not attending the meeting due to other reasons (not financial one) and some of possible reasons are they don't want to pay the fee or don't want to travel etc., they can't vote and I expect most of them (if not all) would feel that is not fair to them and I agree with them on this. Let's say there are 2 options: A and B and this group supports A. The other group who are willing to pay thousands and time to travel long distances ( and to get tortured by the jetlag) join in the meeting to support B (either this group pays for themselves or their employers pay for them). So, it seems there is some evidence to support the thought that the choice is more important to the group supporting B than to the other group supporting A. Any result will hurt one group (can't be both groups have what they want). How about the situation when people have meeting conflicts ? Their record of attending the IETF could allow them to vote later, say within a week or two after the IETF ends. I started the question about "how to avoid the potential problem of one person using multiple emails to vote if the consensus calls are done over emails". And, that was my thought, I did not know any better ways. My hope was that other people will come up with better ideas which would make the email only group (the group supporting A above) feel fair. Regards, Quynh. > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
