On 01/03/2015 12:49, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Sunday, March 01, 2015 04:45 +0530 Pranesh Prakash
> <pranesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Nico Williams <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2015-02-27 00:08:36
>> -0600]:
>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:20PM -0800, Abdussalam Baryun
>>> wrote:
>>>> Thanks. IMHO participants in IETF are in two categories:
>>>> individuals and companies, both needs to have diversity. I
>>>> think IETF has shortage in
>>>
>>> It may seem like a fiction, but all IETF participants are
>>> individuals.
>>
>> It seems like a fiction because it is a fiction.
>
> Pranesh,
>
> Please be careful about over-generalizing. Certainly many,
> almost certainly most, IETF participants are supported for their
> attendance, while they are attending, and for participation by
> the companies or clients for whom they work. But some of us
> are not and are participating as individuals by any plausible
> way you can figure out to classify "individual".
Additionally, the IETF interprets each person's input as individual,
whether it is or it isn't. That in itself is quite effective in
disenfranchising employers.
Also we do, all of us, know how to recognise when someone is parrotting
the BigEvil Corporation's party line, and we all know that if six people
with the same affiliation have identical opinions on a contentious
point, that's roughly equivalent to one individual opinion.
The rough consensus process is actually quite good at resisting gaming
by BigEvil Corporation; see sections 6 and 7 of RFC 7282.
Brian