ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Issues in wider geographic participation

2013-05-30 08:31:15
(2) As far as I can tell, the operators in most regions are
generally well represented in, and collaborate using, the
various *NOGs.

the first derivative is generally positive.  a lot of fluff, machismo,
and posturing, but that seems to come with any endeavor involving us
funny monkeys.

We are not a user group either.

from the ops' pov, this is not exactly true.  it is notable that there
are almost no .*vendor user groups (ejk's xr-ug being a rare and useful
exception).  the ietf is one of the few formal leverage points where we
can get change from the vendors.

To the extent to which there is a need for more user groups or more
effective ones, I hope that the ISOC Chapter structure is at least
making useful contributions in the area.

the isoc does not attract operators.  it is social/political.  if we
fear the roi to an operator of ietf participation is low, the roi of
participation in isoc is vastly lower.  but this is not a bug, it's a
feature.  

we do not need more poly/soc folk helping us run our networks.  we
desperately need them doing the critically needed, and far more
difficult, work of providing the socio-political front for the internet.
and their talents and achievements in these areas are pretty darned good
and getting better every year.

randy

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