On 2/13/15 8:44 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Moreover, if you accept that the word "culture" is effectively > indistinguishable to outsiders from the term "status quo" (though the > intent is obviously different), it's really quite revealing. All this > "preserving the culture" talk comes out in an entirely different light. I think this is a really important comment. I mean, *really* important comment. But it also seems to me pretty clear that the culture is changing, anyway, and it's one of those things that I expect most people know without addressing it directly. I don't think meetings were so heavily emphasized 10 years ago, although that's subjective and could be wrong. We've now got a very large number of people participating whose primary job function is to create standards, and that's caused some changes because their incentives are different from those whose job it is to create products or technology. I don't know how long it's been since running code was a significant adjunct to the work being done in the IETF, but I think it's been quite awhile. So these cultural shifts are taking place anyway, and they are not being "managed." Some are good, some are not. I do think that the increased significance of meetings in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about things like nomcom but about significance to our technical work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize people who can't come to meetings and because it slows work down. Melinda