On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
At 9:32 AM -0800 7/30/10, Melinda Shore wrote:
The implication that there needs to be a session, with a room
and slides and humans sitting in chairs, kind of suggests that
people who want to participate in the IETF have to attend
meetings.
"participate" is too strong a word. Scheduled-but-ad-hoc BoFs now have the
same unfortunate properties of many WGs, namely that 80+% of the people
there are only there to listen, not help.
Double bingo. The number of WG sessions (which are ostensibly scheduled
for the purpose of "working") in which folks have not read the drafts or
otherwise prepared themselves to actively contribute is also distressingly
high.
Who's "folks"? A lot of people come to an IETF meeting, and are only following
one or two of the working groups. That does not mean that they sit in their
hotel rooms for the rest of the meeting. Instead, they pick what looks like
interesting meetings, and go there, with the hope of catching something
interesting.
So yes, they do make it seem like the "working group" is not interested, but
lots of times, they're not even on the mailing list, So it's hard to tell which
of the people in the room are actually "the working group", and I don't think
we have a good definition of who belongs or doesn't belong to "the working
group".
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf