On 7/20/2016 1:52 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
I think it's great that we're drawing community members into the IAOC
discussions.
One of the things that I find missing from this invitation is an
indication of the level of commitment required to participate: how much
time investment will be required? Does the position include travel;...
I'm one of the current Meetings Committee members. Participation does
not consume very much time and membership does not require a blood draw.
There is a telephone meeting for an hour, mostly once a month. There
are summary assessments of candidate venues to review and discuss and
recommend, an casual review of various meeting statistics. Occasionally
a sticky subject pops up and needs deeper discussion. So an average
meeting is a mundane venue-selection discussion and only very
occasionally a profound IETF existential discussion.
There is no travel associated with membership. (Obviously there is an
assumption of familiarity with IETF venue issues, but I've missed a
number of recent meetings and while that meant I didn't have a
first-hand 'feel' for specific issues discussed about the venues I did
not visit, I don't think it's affected my ability to contribute.
Adding community volunteers, if done right, may serve to
increase diversity; however, by sheer numbers, adding one or two people
to a group of nine will make, at best, a very small change to its
composition.
In a group like this, a single voice is often able to be well-heard.
To the extent that the goal is some sort of 'complete' representation of
the potentially-infinite range of diverse perspectives, obviously that's
not possible, while still keeping it a manageable, small group.
My own view is that diversity in small groups is best served merely by
making sure that various members really are different in almost any
variety of interesting and meaningful ways. For example, I think that's
why the other members continue to put up with my own participation...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net