I did not like the change of the title which was suggested in diversity
list. the first title was related to IETF, because we need to attract more
other regions in IETF or to facilitate the improve of other region's
participation. The draft's solution was to recommend fellowship (should not
be the only marketing way), which made it distract its real value. I
suggest to see how this fellowship is coordinated with IETF and how much it
attracts (real results needed), this will help the program managers to know
how IETF sees the program from the community point of view (not management
of ietf or management of the program).
AB
On Friday, October 11, 2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
we need to keep the flexibility of bringing in someone new
agree
But my main issue is that the draft sounds like its trying to take over
and redefine an ISOC program, which I don't think the IETF can or should
do. The ISOC program has a purpose, a history and at least from my
perspective is working pretty well with the budget it has available. I'm
not sure we can actually improve it much.
agree, of course. at best we can provide input. but it really is an ISOC
program.
Jari