> From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley <worley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before > > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77479.html), but > > in the current context it bears repeating: Here in the IETF we accept > > that low-status people may argue regarding technical matters, but > > reserve for high-status people having opinions about our procedures. > > I thought your original message (the one you cite above) was very > good, but I'm not sure I like the terms "low-status" and > "high-status," simply because tey could be easily taken to mean > something other than what I think you intend them to mean. We do have a status system within the IETF and generally one gains status within that system by recognized technical work. And on certain sorts of issues, particularly changes in processes, we don't listen well to people who don't have high status within that system. In that regard, the IETF is far from egalitarian. In regard to diversity issues, it is important to ask whether position in the status system is directly affected by factors other than just technical contribution. Probably more important for diversity issues is that factors in a person's life other than their outright technical ability can strongly affect their ability to contribute to our technical work, and thus achieve the status needed to be influential. A more subtle problem is whether technical contribution correlates well the skills needed for leadership positions -- does being a quality technical contributor demonstrate the skills needed to be an effective IAB member? Although given the discussion around "IESG review", it seems that the reward for gaining the leadership position of IESG membership is becoming an extremely busy technical reviewer of standards... Dale