You may close at you end but your input became an IETF input so I will not close it because it is valid at my experience knowing about other organisations. So I will answer my view to Adrian's question.
Clubing in private (i. e. closed from access) or hiding its powers should be not allowed in any IETF processes. If you have a club just announce it. I remember Adrian send a message saying that two ADs had same organisation affiliation and that one should leave the IETF position which was excellent process and proves high performance of IESG but what about WGs.
On the other hand, IMHO, Being social in IETF and creating social clubs is not bad, but it should not influence IETF participants decisions, because it is better that participants follow engineering logic/practice reasons not following private/public clubs. Increasing Diversity into IETF is the solution to avoid wrong clubings in IESG and IETF WGs (i. e. IETF's main decision makings).
Please comment,
AB
Please note that my experience in IETF is two years remote participation, two years monitoring without participation, and coming to the new meeting to break the ice. The IETF has few private clubs very easily discovered just by watching the lists, however, some participants still follow engineering reasoning. I have experience with another volunteering organisation (other than this IETF) for 2 years f2f participation and was a council member to make decisions that guide that organisation output.
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Adrian, John,
At 05:57 26-02-2014, Adrian Farrel wrote:
The point you make in your second paragraph is very valid, but it is hard to
comment on your first paragraph without details.
Would you care to phrase the issue succinctly so that a (moderately) definitive
statement can be made?
I consider the matter as closed.
At 05:59 26-02-2014, John C Klensin wrote:
Please note that I did not ignore your message. In my opinion the discussion would get out of hand.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy