Hiya, Henrik: I'm very sad that you felt you had to reach that conclusion. I think the IETF will be the worse. Many many thanks for your work over the years and especially for what always seemed to me the lightning quick responses whenever a question or issue came up. On 03/11/2020 20:27, Keith Moore wrote:
On 11/3/20 3:07 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:To me, IETF is best when it is driven by engagement of contributors, and (rough) community consensus, and not by leadership decisions.
Big +1 from me to that.
Unfortunately, i think we are shifting more and more to this leadershippreference based constrainment of innitiatives, innovation and activities,spending more time on prohibiting activities than encouraging them.
I'm less sure of about some of the above. Managing a mix of volunteers and contractors and people who are both is likely really hard and surely very different from management within the large IT company that's maybe the most common sponsor of IETF activities. And ISTM that the way management is done in such companies has changed since I escaped 'em and landed back in academia around 2002ish. That said, I do worry that some of what I'd see as the less desirable management practices from such employers are maybe impacting on the volunteerism that's core for the IETF. I'm not confident that I know that though. And we're probably also benefiting from the management practices in such places that have improved a lot in recent times too, so it's not all a one-way thing. On 03/11/2020 20:27, Keith Moore wrote: > The proper role of the leadership is to facilitate community consensus, Also a big +1 to that. Perhaps a least-bad outcome here might include some of the I* bodies reflecting some more on volunteerism and all we gain from that. S.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
