The "incentive" that something like SIRS offered was classification as
a senior contributor. This was neither a small point nor a small
benefit (IMO).
what was the benefit of becoming a senior contributor?
...
how would this differ from the "technical advisor" title?
In my model, the advisor is an on-going mentor. They are an active participant
in the working group.
Reviewers are not (necessarily) participants. There is an obvious -- and
probably quite appropriate -- view that a reviewer MUST NOT be a participant,
lest their review be too distorted by having too much context.
In both cases, I would think that neither has any sort of veto. Rather, they
must sway by convincing rather than dictating. This applies both to the
decision-making by the wg and decision-making by the IESG (about the wg output.)
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf