On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> 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. Who's "folks"? A lot of people come to an IETF meeting, and are only following one or two of the working groups. That does not mean that they sit in their hotel rooms for the rest of the meeting. Instead, they pick what looks like interesting meetings, and go there, with the hope of catching something interesting. So yes, they do make it seem like the "working group" is not interested, but lots of times, they're not even on the mailing list, So it's hard to tell which of the people in the room are actually "the working group", and I don't think we have a good definition of who belongs or doesn't belong to "the working group". _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf