On 5/11/19 4:06 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This reply seems to presume that "independent" developers should be
> considered by IETF to be the exceptional case, and only "dependent"
> developers (presumably those funded by huge corporations) have a right to sit
> at the big table. I think it should be the other way around - IETF should be
> optimized to facilitate contributions from independent parties, and those
> with sponsorship are welcome to sit at the same table as everyone else.
I think that, compared to other so-called SDOs, that the IETF is very much
already heavily optimized in that way.
I'm reminded of a sign that I once saw that said "Mediocrity is
excellence at pursuing the mean", and thinking "That must be the motto
of <X>!"
(X was an organization in which I'd invested a lot of energy, and I
thought this because they were constantly comparing themselves with
other similar organizations both as a way of making decisions, and also
as a way to reassure themselves that they were "good enough")
Let's not make that IETF's motto.
> There was a time when IETF was more like this, even after we had to pay our
> own meeting costs. We got sucked into the mode of holding meetings at
> expensive hotels, especially after our attendance figures pushed into
Yes, it used to more like that, it is true.
I think we could consciously shrink our meeting size to fit into smaller
venues, but that decision would itself be considered to be excluding people.
I think it's possible that our attendance is small enough now, that
we're on the ragged edge now of having a wider choice of venues. But I
don't want to discourage attendance! I'd rather see if we can make the
meetings a bit (a) shorter, (b) less expensive (including both hotel and
travel cost), and (c) more productive for the money/time expenditure,
thus a better value for those footing the bill.
Keith
