On 10/1/23 14:21, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Keith,
I created a new thread and changed the subject time.
At 09:22 AM 01-10-2023, Keith Moore wrote:
Some ADs might have had a bit less workload, but I think everyone had
a lot of work. And the travel requirement is still a problem. Few
employers and few individuals have the money or time to spare to pay
for activities that don't produce revenue. And that unfortunately
means that almost everyone on IESG works for a large corporation, and
the organization as a whole pays too much attention to corporate
interests at the expense of the broader Internet community.
I noticed the following sentence on the web site: "This lack of
membership ensures its position as the primary neutral [in italics]
standards body because participants cannot exert influence as they
could in a pay-to-play organization where members, companies, or
governments pay fees to set the direction."
LOL. The truth is, pretty much everyone who participates effectively
in IETF either pays to play or (more likely) has someone paying for them
to play. Paying doesn't ensure that you get influence, but you can't
get much influence without paying.
I used to follow IETF meetings at very odd hours. I refrained from
doing that since the pay-to-play fee was instituted. I am aware that
the IETF has a "last-call" mailing list as part of the open comment
period before the IESG takes a decision on a proposal.
I'm also concerned about the current requirement to pay if you
participate remotely. And yes, I'm aware of the fee waiver, but you're
only eligible if you couldn't pay to participate otherwise. I understand
that remote participation has significant costs that need to be
recovered somehow, but I believe the current remote participation fees
are far too high and do serve as barriers to participation.
From what I recall, the IESG members disclose the name of their
employers. It should be possible for figure out whether an IESG
member is primarily focused on their employer's interests.
It's not only participants' employers' interests that I'm concerned
about. The normalization of corporate culture in IETF has done
tremendous harm to IETF and its ability to serve the Internet
community. For example very many people have abandoned the concept of
interoperability (at least at layers above transport) and vendor
independence, in favor of the idea that the Internet exists to support
proprietary applications.
It is unclear whether the IETF of today, in comparison with the IETF
of yesteryears, pays too much attention to corporate interests at the
expense of the Internet community.
That's another important thing that's difficult to measure.
Keith
