-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi
On 11/10/13 08:52, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 11, 2013, at 14:43, Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
wrote:
I do have a question for Lars though. What are your opinions on this? (You
said that there is no consensus, but I'd like to hear also your thoughts.)
so one key question is what influence the IETF actually has on an ISOC
program. We can certainly state our wishes, but my belief is that it's ISOC's
program in the end, and they can basically chose to run it as they see fit.
That doesn't come out in the draft at all.
Another issue I have with the the draft is written with the implied
understanding that the program should fund the repeated attendance of
residents of under-represented regions who are actively participating in some
sort of way. It's not clear to me that this is really what would be best in
terms of increasing organizational diversity over time. I wouldn't want to
fund the same people over and over; I'd much rather bring in new people all
the time in the hopes of spreading the word about the IETF widely and hoping
that some folks will end up in roles where they can occasionally attend on
their own dime. I'd like to be able to bring in other under-represented
groups (students, academics, women, etc.) We can certainly have a discussion
about what is best; my point is that the draft has already decided that one
approach is the way to go.
I wonder if the draft should mention % of new & returning fellows.
Should it be a fixed %?.
I also have a few issues with the suggestions it makes:
Section 4.1 requires that an applicant needs to already have been a
participant in the IETF. That seems excessive. For returning fellows, some
sort of engagement in the IETF after a while would be nice, but I can see
valid cases for supporting someone's repeated attendance who isn't
contributing in a very visible role. Also, I question the possibility to
quantify and compare someone's impact of IETF involvement. And again, there
are others than "resident of a country in an under-represented region" who we
might want to bring in, and we probably don't need to fund the attendance of
employees of large vendors who happen to be residents of under-represented
regions.
The evaluation panel in Section 4.2 is therefore also problematic. And I
wouldn't want to blindly "prioritize people who have been contributing over
time to real IETF work" - we need to keep the flexibility of bringing in
someone new who has high potential even if it means that someone who has been
funded to attend in the past isn't going to be covered.
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.
Lars
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSXzR8AAoJEPLWfIhsIf1k0t4IAKK83ur1EopuBZ/Wi7/EudZc
fBY2JnvDkenhBtkxa2xPYECFLJeDhelHA4NMHYiRUcEpdeTrc2K1JmZ6KRb93iw5
W5MSadOIkukjEp40DVyB2ZCJP015YupNzqIWp7mQOkcEfeqD009Bt32eLkixVKsG
zAFHVAVoctQOLiEzOlWSD1e/xpnAx3QHugjt414zvvgM7rDFh3JldiaJxa5PBK+E
Pulhh5kNlNXfax7pOOn2pVHaggIdDQWyOIE6S0aC9OmH9EGSkQY6F9VDe2NYMJtH
s9usWMAbYFonrx2jg+sKETcT6QUOQ6Uw2Vh1+0M2FlPq6rRZvCwIC56rFGN9rOg=
=nqEC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----