Hi Keith,
At 02:09 AM 31-10-2021, Keith Moore wrote:
I respectfully disagree that the ietf list weakens the IETF. I
think the IETF is much weaker now, much less able to address the
real needs of the Internet community.
What I meant was that not having the venue weakens the IETF.
I agree with this much. But we have now become so fragmented that
it's hard for us to discover new shared values or evolve the old
ones. I used to call this the Tower of Babel effect, but it's much
worse now than it was when I first saw it happening in the late 1990s.
Instead a poor substitute for values are imposed from above or by
external forces, neither of which serves the Internet user community.
How can we move IETF forward so that it can actually become more
inclusive rather than less, better able to consider diverse inputs
than it is now? I'm pretty sure that efforts to marginalize
"different" participants won't serve this purpose.
The following is an IESG task from 2019:
[removed] to work on some mechanism to obtain wider or private
feedback from people who are disenfranchised; anonymous flagging
of offensive emails to inform leadership; more opportunities for
private feedback.
There wasn't any action on that (from what I remember).
The issues which you mentioned require a lot of effort to resolve, if
that is even possible. The persons doing that would need to get
community buy-in.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
