At 01:54 AM 3/5/2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
<<mailto:abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
AB5- the slides consider how the IETF WG is created but not how IETF
areas are created. I don't think it is right that IESG should only
be responsible for creating IETF areas.
then who should be responsible?
The community should have voice in creating or changing IETF areas.
it does, but not to a person. There is a structure based IMO on
manageability and sanity.
The community has (or at least is supposed to have) a voice in any
such change. As I understand it, there are actually very few things
the IESG is allowed to do without consulting participants.
+1
I hope in future that each 5 years we get a message from IESG saying
IETF areas structure proposal (renew same, or restructure). That can
be done in one meeting may be better than the list.
I don't think setting a specific interval when such changes are
allowed to be introduced or affirmed is useful.
a 5 year interval is an entirely arbitrary number. You put any 10
active participants in a room and ask just this 1 question and you'll
probably get 15 answers, with none being the same, i.e., good luck
with that... !
AB5- Slide 5, shows f2f (i.e. face to face) attendance of
participants which increased between 1996 to 2002, in average above
2000. That is a 8 year duration with many meetings per year (totally
about 24 f2f event) with numbers of about 2000 attendees and then
decreased after 2002 becoming in average above 1000 and less than
1500 attendees. IMHO, the community had not continued to attend
because of possible difficulties or high probability of waste time,
with slow production, also the diversity problem that still IETF needs to fix.
I have to agree with Lloyd; I don't think those are the causes.
this is how a single slide with a few numbers can be taken COMPLETELY
out of context and force a particular curious person into reverse
engineering reasons for a meaning for those numbers based on one
persons preconceived baggage (i.e., personal history)'
sorry for the rant... in short, I generally agree with Lloyd,
although give my more time and/or more slide room, and I could easily
expand the list of reasons, none being what you offered Abdussalam.
James
-MSK