Hi SM,
On 04-Oct-23 03:00, S Moonesamy wrote:
...
It could be argued that it is possible to participate in
standard-setting by joining a mailing list.
It very definitely *is* so argued and is extremely basic to
the IETF process. RFC2418/BCP25 is definitive:
" An IETF working group MUST have a general Internet mailing list.
Most of the work of an IETF working group will be conducted on the
mailing list."
" All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide
participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its
business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet
periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to
resolve specific issues and to direct future activities."
" Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about
topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list,
or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list
consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list."
I doubt that it is
practical or else the participation set would reflect that.
It does. There are numerous examples of active contributors who
never or rarely fly to IETF meetings.
Nobody is denying the sociological advantages of attending meetings.
But the IETF has consistently tried to mitigate them. (And if people
choose to avoid such mitigation, for example by choosing not to be
on the last-call list, or this list, that is their own problem.)
The second description of "pay-to-play" is about voting rights. The
closest thing to voting rights in the Internet Standards Process is
the Internet Engineering Steering Group ballot procedure. There
might be a perception that an AD who is affiliated with an
organization would favour that organization.
Which is why we have the "maximum two" rule for participation in the
NomCom, since it's completely impractical to have such a rule for the
IESG, as has been discussed here many times. IMHO voting rights in
the NomCom are at least as important as those in the IESG or IAB.
Regards,
Brian
