[sigcomm] attendance policies for SIGCOMM-affiliated events

[Christophe Diot]

 > That's noble of you, but it doesn't seem responsive to my point.  While
 > I understand that it makes an attractive target for your polemic, no one
 > is advocating acting in the interests of a small number of privileged
 > people.

this kind of comment doesnt help us make progress. my point is just that i 
disagree with the fact that (in your point 4) defining rules goes against 
promotion of science. how polemic is that?

 > What we are asking is if SIGCOMM should give the PC chairs some
 > latitude in attendance policies when, and only when, it improves the
 > advancement of science for all.

the answer to the last question is clearly yes. however, there seems to be a
disagreement on whether "selected" attendance achieves this goal!

in addition, for a selective discussion among a small number of people sigcomm 
sponsorship is not needed (ex: WIRED in oregon in 2003, INTIMATE in paris in 2003).