Workshops with restricted attendance often seem to have a two-tiered
policy: authors/panelists first, rest later on a space-available basis.
This unfortunately, for the IETF, has obvious gaming potential which the
I-D editor is not likely to appreciate. Relying on drafts to be
discussed at a WG doesn't work, as that's decided way too late in most
cases. (Any restriction, based on content or anything but cut-off dates,
is likely to cause concerns about openness and equal access, which
presumably NANOG does not have to deal with.)
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> I hate to argue with Randy's common sense but I don't think this
> works. There are always people who can't get travel authorisation
> until very late, or whatever, among those who are absolutely needed
> (i.e. document authors etc.). So we would need rules about who gets in
> regardless of the limit, and I don't see any way out of the discussion
> that would generate.
>
> Brian
>
> Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > as no one has mentioned this approach, i figured to add to the non-
> > productive confusion as follows:
> >
> > nanog had an analogous crowding issue. the organizers looked at the problem
> > and said
> >
> > the goal is not to become large, the goal is to maintain quality
> >
> > but one does not want to disenfranchise any particular constituency
> >
> > so nangog gets space for about 500 people, allows just that many to
> > register, and it's first register first serve.
> >
> > randy
>
> -
> This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which
> is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
