> At 9:32 AM -0800 7/30/10, Melinda Shore wrote: > >>The implication that there needs to be a session, with a room >>and slides and humans sitting in chairs, kind of suggests that >>people who want to participate in the IETF have to attend >>meetings. > > "participate" is too strong a word. Scheduled-but-ad-hoc BoFs now have the > same unfortunate properties of many WGs, namely that 80+% of the people > there are only there to listen, not help. Double bingo. The number of WG sessions (which are ostensibly scheduled for the purpose of "working") in which folks have not read the drafts or otherwise prepared themselves to actively contribute is also distressingly high. Perhaps we all simply have too much work to do, or perhaps many drafts are written in such a way that folks can't easily grok the problem and its proposed solution. Regarding the latter, one of the WGs I advise held a small "tutorial" session in a side room on Friday morning and that turned out to be quite useful because it forced some of the key contributors (in this case the chairs) to clearly explain the core concepts behind the protocol under development within the WG, and I think that effort will pay off in the form of a much clearer and more readable specification. Peter _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf