Melinda Shore wrote: > Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > > FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant > > each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an > > appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not coming > > out in this kind of thread. Since I personally participated only IETFs 33rd through 43rd plus 48th, the picture of the elephant might be "somewhat outdated". Back then, I had many fine lunches and dinners with WG chairs, security AD and other folks from the security area. > > Well, maybe, but it seems to me that he's lost track of the > discussion. My argument is that the IESG has a gatekeeping > function in taking on new work, that's based (aside from > resourcing) on a set of values, their view of what's needed in > the industry, etc. With a uniform IESG membership you're not > going to get a rather uniform view of the overall context > for IETF work, you'll lose perspective, and consequently there's > value to having members who aren't almost all from big > manufacturers. I'm not so sure I would still call it "gatekeeping" these days. To me, it looks more like "trying to hold back the flood". In 1995 there were fewer WGs, only 2 hours slots at Meetings, and some WGs were regularly using two slots. Today, some ADs might want to start a new WG in their area only when they can make an exiting WG in their area conclude. So you might be running in a competition to the WG that is currently being done, rather being subject to only the IESGs free and unconstrained value judgement. -Martin