Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback — for sites currently unde

I wanted to thank for the feedback we’ve already gotten to venue-selection on 
the three future meeting locations. Keep the feedback coming!

I also wanted to briefly comment on the discussion here on 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org list. First off, the term “world tour” can be 
understood in different ways, and it may not be the best term to use. We are a 
technology collaboration forum, not a tour operator :-) From my perspective it 
is important that the IETF meetings happen where the IETFers are, maybe with 
occasional preference to emerging groups of IETFers. Hence 1-1-1*. Exactly 
where on the continents we meet is subject to detailed planning, but my 
understanding of the community’s wishes has been that we’d like to see more 
repeats of successful meeting sites, and I think that is what I’m seeing in the 
future meeting calendar. Even so, some variation should probably be left, given 
that where we meet exactly does affect who comes to the meetings. If the IETF 
ever came to Finland I would guarantee that there’d be more people than the 
usual participants, and those people would have something to say about our 
topics :-)

Secondly, when we talk about participation in IETF work, it should defined 
broadly. Meetings are far from the only way to introduce people to the IETF, 
and far from the only measure of a person’s involvement in the IETF. In the 
years prior to our meeting in BA, there was a lot of interaction and activity 
in the region, I’m sure there will be in the coming years as well.

Thirdly, outside that specific action, I think our organisation is also 
otherwise experiencing changes in participation styles, e.g., remote 
participation and remote presentations are growing. And I think even the 
concept of an IETF participant perhaps should evolve. For instance, I would 
love to see a mode of operation where it is possible to participate in 
significant ways with differing levels of investment. Somebody can attend all 
meetings and put in a significant fraction of their time, and be involved in 
many activities. That is perhaps the group of people that finds it easiest to 
work at the IETF, currently. But someone else may only be able to drive a 
particular issue, or perhaps just be able to check in to fix a bug that he or 
she has identified. Granted, we’ve always been able to do this, but I think 
there’s room for improvement. Can an open source project member with no ability 
to travel drive a spec from 00 to RFC? There are some obvious challenges, but I 
think it would be a good thing for the IETF if the answer was yes. Similarly, 
could an experienced technology developer participate in the IETF to drive an 
effort that he or she is interested in, for the duration of the effort, and 
become a chair of that working group? Again, I’d argue it would be a good thing 
that the answer was yes.

Jari

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail