Melinda Shore wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not coming
out in this kind of thread.
Since I personally participated only IETFs 33rd through 43rd plus 48th,
the picture of the elephant might be "somewhat outdated".
Back then, I had many fine lunches and dinners with WG chairs,
security AD and other folks from the security area.
Well, maybe, but it seems to me that he's lost track of the
discussion. My argument is that the IESG has a gatekeeping
function in taking on new work, that's based (aside from
resourcing) on a set of values, their view of what's needed in
the industry, etc. With a uniform IESG membership you're not
going to get a rather uniform view of the overall context
for IETF work, you'll lose perspective, and consequently there's
value to having members who aren't almost all from big
manufacturers.
I'm not so sure I would still call it "gatekeeping" these days.
To me, it looks more like "trying to hold back the flood".
In 1995 there were fewer WGs, only 2 hours slots at Meetings, and
some WGs were regularly using two slots. Today, some ADs might
want to start a new WG in their area only when they can make an
exiting WG in their area conclude. So you might be running in a
competition to the WG that is currently being done, rather being
subject to only the IESGs free and unconstrained value judgement.
-Martin