Larry-

Vern asked a set of good questions.  We should discuss them.  This note
is not part of such a discussion.  You started it.

This:

> So, in my view, it seems to come down to two alternatives:
> 
> 1) HotNets continues with SIGCOMM sponsorship, remains closed,
>     but has a more transparent admissions policy; or
> 
> 2) HotNets leaves the SIGCOMM nest.

is not part of a useful discussion on the questions Vern asked.
Conferences / workshops / etc. that want to use the SIG umbrella for the
benefits (which you clearly believe are present - from reading your
note) at least have the responsibility to engage in a discussion with
the community on issues like this, IMO.  If the grass roots that pitch
ideas to the SIG cannot agree to that then I don't feel particularly bad
about seeing the door hit 'em on the way out.  

Reasonable people can, of course, have philosophical differences and one
could envision things coming to your (1) or (2).  I would hope that
maybe we could all reason about these things and it would not come to
that.  At least I would hope that we could *have* a discussion before
people start throwing down "my way or else" sorts of statements.
(Statements which are clearly ludicrous anyway ... as if there aren't
many very able people in this community who could drive a new SIGCOMM
workshop on "Hot Topics In Networking".)

For instance, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning behind this
statement ... 

> I also strongly believe that there is a valuable place for workshops
> with limited attendance. 

That would be useful to me.  (Not saying I agree or disagree ... just
that I'd like to have *that* conversation and I'd be quite interested in
your thinking on the matter since you have been through all stages of
a number of such events.)

allman