Re: ISOC money, was Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Andrew,
At 02:34 PM 29-10-2017, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
If we're going to have this conversation here, rather than in an
ISOC-dedicated forum (and I confess I am very much unsure why we
should do that), then perhaps saying something apart from "I don't

Ok.

think that's so good," would be worth doing.  What _would_ be good,
what would meet your expectations, and so on?  That is, give the
reader some reason to think that the evaluation is anything other than
personal taste.  For example, I think bananas are not that good (they
gross me out), but that doesn't mean the banana people are doing
something wrong.

I do not have any expectations. My last comment about the matter in an IETF venue was on 10 October 2013. My only comment about the matter outside the IETF was around 11 months ago; the reason for that is because I was in the room where ISOC was having the discussion. My opinion is based on a reading of the discussions on ietf@xxxxxxxx over an extended period of time; it is a subjective way to assess IETF participation. I haven't looked at the recent statistics for attendance. My guess is that it is around 1% for the region. I am okay if the reader believes that the opinion is a matter of personal taste.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]