Not entirely true. It is true that getting "management positions" (chairs, AD, NomCom) requires meeting attendance. But a non-attender can get recognition for quality technical points, and can even progress technical work. RFC 4478 was published long before I attended my first meeting. My own working group (WebSec) has document authors who never attend meetings. In other areas there are frequent and prolific contributors, who either never attended a meeting or have quit attending them years ago. Even the directorates have such people. So no, you probably can't get a dot for your badge without actually having one, but you can become "prominent" in the sense that people might say "this document hasn't had enough review. Let's ask so-and-so to read it", or "I'm putting together a design team for foo. Let's see if we can get so-and-so to join" Yoav On Apr 18, 2013, at 11:31 AM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Not sure about the recognition for technical work. > > To progress technical work, you have to go to meetings. To progress in the IETF (chair, AD, IESG) you have to go to meetings. > > Keep turning up and don't be too obviously completely abysmal technically, and you can get a status dot on your badge. > > The IETF is run by goers, and goers like goers. > > Lloyd Wood > http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ > > > ________________________________________ > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dale R. Worley [worley@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 17 April 2013 21:38 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG Review) > >> 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 > > Email secured by Check Point