Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as presented,
was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven company
that is flush with cash, its no reason to berate people in public, even
if done in a lighthearted way.
% This is an excellent illustration of why newcomers need to be mentored.
% Bill Manning wrote:
% > % > Bill said:
% > % > a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps
% > % > much harder to allow individual contribution. If I was starting
% > % > I'd avoid the IETF as a venue.
% > %
% > % If we are projecting this image, it's a problem. But given the constant
% > % increase in attendance, I doubt if it's really the case. Certainly in my
% > % own WG we have some very active participants who weren't at all involved
% > % we started, and some of the early activists have moved on.
% > %
% > % If you think that good newcomers are not getting a fair hearing, recommend
% > % them to the ADs as WG chairs. And mentor any newcomers that you happen to
% > %
% > % Brian
% > I have reason to beleive that newcomers are NOT getting a fair hearing.
% > Attached is a sanitized bit of email I received in the last week.
% > ------------------------------------
% > < Just surfed the <WG> archive in response to the issues raised at
% > <the IETF plenary. Are the recent posts representative of the standard mode
% > <of discussion for the list?
% > <
% > < I am trying to decide the extent to which I wish to become involved
% > <in the <specific> area. So far I have had the area director hiss at me
% > <stated my company name at the <WG> meeting and been told that certain
% > <solutions could not exist because 'so many clever people have already
% > <considered the problem'.
% > --
% > --bill