ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]

2012-11-15 12:54:50
Note that I didn't say 'give back in terms of attendees' , I wrote 'give
back in terms of participation', in my mind, participation *can* be
remote, although as I mentioned in an earlier email the IETF needs to
improve remote access facilities a lot.

However, the perception of almost everyone I've spoken with is that if
you really want to push a document (not being a reviewer, not being a
3rd or 4th co-author), you need to be there in person. I'm sure I will
be pointed to exceptions to this rule, but that seems to be the general
perception.

regards,

Carlos

On 11/15/12 4:00 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 11/15/12 8:47 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
I do believe that regions wanting to have an IETF meeting should also
give back in terms of active participation, I agree with that.

I really think there's an enormous disconnect here.  I'm really unclear
on how this is supposed to work: if someone thinks they need to attend
a meeting in order to participate in the work and there's only one
meeting in their region in some large number of years, it's difficult
to see how that one meeting is going to lead to active participation.
Arguing that IETF openness is a function of meeting location is
totally missing the point.  Clearly we could be making that point
better, but it seems to me that privileging meetings as a more
important part of the process of producing documents very clearly works
against an open participation model.

The main benefit, it seems to me, is not geographic but that we
are woefully short on participation by operators and that many of the
folk in developing or less affluent countries work for operators,
registrars, regulators, etc., and we may benefit from one-off
participation from them.

Melinda