ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG Review)

2013-04-18 03:32:07

Not sure about the recognition for technical work.

To progress technical work, you have to go to meetings. To progress in the IETF 
(chair, AD, IESG) you have to go to meetings.

Keep turning up and don't be too obviously completely abysmal technically, and 
you can get a status dot on your badge.

The IETF is run by goers, and goers like goers.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/


________________________________________
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of Dale R. Worley [worley(_at_)ariadne(_dot_)com]
Sent: 17 April 2013 21:38
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG     
Review)

From: Ted Lemon <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>

On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley <worley(_at_)ariadne(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77479.html), but
in the current context it bears repeating:  Here in the IETF we accept
that low-status people may argue regarding technical matters, but
reserve for high-status people having opinions about our procedures.

I thought your original message (the one you cite above) was very
good, but I'm not sure I like the terms "low-status" and
"high-status," simply because tey could be easily taken to mean
something other than what I think you intend them to mean.

We do have a status system within the IETF and generally one gains
status within that system by recognized technical work.  And on
certain sorts of issues, particularly changes in processes, we don't
listen well to people who don't have high status within that system.
In that regard, the IETF is far from egalitarian.

In regard to diversity issues, it is important to ask whether position
in the status system is directly affected by factors other than just
technical contribution.

Probably more important for diversity issues is that factors in a
person's life other than their outright technical ability can strongly
affect their ability to contribute to our technical work, and thus
achieve the status needed to be influential.

A more subtle problem is whether technical contribution correlates
well the skills needed for leadership positions -- does being a
quality technical contributor demonstrate the skills needed to be an
effective IAB member?  Although given the discussion around "IESG
review", it seems that the reward for gaining the leadership position
of IESG membership is becoming an extremely busy technical reviewer of
standards...

Dale

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>