> On Feb 25, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 2/25/15 6:58 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote: >> True, and hopefully the work at the Hackathon will provide useful input >> into BOFs, etc., that helps make more informed decisions about whether and >> how to proceed with forming working groups. If you have another technology >> you would like to propose and for which we can identify a champion to help >> drive it, we can add it, as we are doing today for SFC. > > This whole process has been kind of odd and not at all > transparent. Not sure why working group chairs weren't > approached for potential projects. I just went through > the list of projects and it appears that Cisco is overrepresented > in the technologies being proposed. This does not seem to be > an "IETF" hackathon, but rather a Cisco hackathon held in > at an IETF meeting. > > Melinda I'm with you %100. As co-chair of 2 wgs and deeply involved in the yang modeling efforts going on here and externally - most of which is clearly related - I'm puzzled. Benoit, Juergen and I have also been running a yangathon - hackathon for yang models - for a year now at each meeting which seems like a good fit for an org wide hackathon. No one approached us for this either. Tom > >