[Chapter-delegates] Proposal for IETF Registration fee support for Chapters

[John Levine]

In article <CAKrxPqd9BOsCX1cLgiq-2=a4UJgJhzmJqRqc_FJNcUx=KHR_Ag at mail.gmail.com> you write:
>I do not agree with your statement. First, you assume that people that
>would participate in an IETF meeting under the proposed program would do so
>as "tourists". Why? Second, you also assume that very few people have
>the "*technical
>competence*" to follow a meeting. Really? So only those currently involved
>in a working group are "technically competent"?

No.  You have to be involved in a working group to understand what's
going on in that group.  As I said in the part of the message you
quoted, IETF meetings are working sessions.  If you haven't read the
drafts under discussion and followed the relevant mailing lists, you
will have no idea what they're talking about, no matter how
technically competent you are.  If you haven't done this, you're a
tourist.  I speak from personal experience here, having sat in on
sessions for which I didn't prepare.

>I do think that allowing more people, specially from ISOC Chapters, to
>participate in an IETF will encourage more involvement in working groups.

History suggests this is not true; we met in Argentina last year,
specifically because it was an area where few people are active in the
IETF.  It didn't help.

>In my opinion, just because someone has never been to an IETF meeting does
>not mean they are not capable of joining a working and contribute.

For the umpteenth time, the IETF is open to everyone, via mailing
lists and working drafts.  First you do that, then maybe you go to
meetings.  Many people participate actively and productively for years
and never go to meetings.

If there were people who are active in the online activities of the
IETF and were unable to afford to go to meetings, subsidizing them
could make sense, as we do for IETF fellows now, but that's not what
I'm hearing here.

R's,
John