I wanted to thank for the feedback we’ve already gotten to venue-selection on the three future meeting locations. Keep the feedback coming! I also wanted to briefly comment on the discussion here on ietf@xxxxxxxx list. First off, the term “world tour” can be understood in different ways, and it may not be the best term to use. We are a technology collaboration forum, not a tour operator :-) From my perspective it is important that the IETF meetings happen where the IETFers are, maybe with occasional preference to emerging groups of IETFers. Hence 1-1-1*. Exactly where on the continents we meet is subject to detailed planning, but my understanding of the community’s wishes has been that we’d like to see more repeats of successful meeting sites, and I think that is what I’m seeing in the future meeting calendar. Even so, some variation should probably be left, given that where we meet exactly does affect who comes to the meetings. If the IETF ever came to Finland I would guarantee that there’d be more people than the usual participants, and those people would have something to say about our topics :-) Secondly, when we talk about participation in IETF work, it should defined broadly. Meetings are far from the only way to introduce people to the IETF, and far from the only measure of a person’s involvement in the IETF. In the years prior to our meeting in BA, there was a lot of interaction and activity in the region, I’m sure there will be in the coming years as well. Thirdly, outside that specific action, I think our organisation is also otherwise experiencing changes in participation styles, e.g., remote participation and remote presentations are growing. And I think even the concept of an IETF participant perhaps should evolve. For instance, I would love to see a mode of operation where it is possible to participate in significant ways with differing levels of investment. Somebody can attend all meetings and put in a significant fraction of their time, and be involved in many activities. That is perhaps the group of people that finds it easiest to work at the IETF, currently. But someone else may only be able to drive a particular issue, or perhaps just be able to check in to fix a bug that he or she has identified. Granted, we’ve always been able to do this, but I think there’s room for improvement. Can an open source project member with no ability to travel drive a spec from 00 to RFC? There are some obvious challenges, but I think it would be a good thing for the IETF if the answer was yes. Similarly, could an experienced technology developer participate in the IETF to drive an effort that he or she is interested in, for the duration of the effort, and become a chair of that working group? Again, I’d argue it would be a good thing that the answer was yes. Jari
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail