Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
I take your point.
>> > 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.
I also agree.
You and I have been around for similar lengths of time (compared to the mean;
you were a senior member when I joined), but over time you and I have had
similar funding constraints. You have attended many fewer meetings in the
last decade than I.
For me, this means:
1) returning regularly to the same venues. They don't have to be dirt cheap,
but over time I/we learn how to spend less on accomodation, and know
which other events/meetings are nearby to leverage travel costs.
2) fewer parallel tracks === fewer conflicts ==> more informal/change/side meetings, which
are exactly what in-person meetings excel at.
3) we need to move the very valuable Hackathon into the week so that the
overall duration is less.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
