On 13-May-19 13:02, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 5/10/19 6:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> As one example, the gaia wg had some really interesting speakers
>>> from poorer parts of the world that got there somehow, when it
>>> was first formed. How did that happen? Is it still happening?
>
>> I don't know, but I suspect ISOC had a hand in it. Special
>> facilities for participants from developing countries are an
>> excellent thing, although the ISOC Fellowships seem to be on hold
>> at the moment.
>
> gaia is not an IETF working group - it is an IRSG research group, and
> that is not a trivial distinction in terms of working methods or
> deliverables.
Nor in terms of motivations either. However, it seems relevant to
the question of whether the IETF should continue to do standards
track work *ahead* of the market, of which homenet is a current
example and IPv6 is a 25-year-old example. In the realm of counter-
factuals, imagine for a moment what might have happened if in 1994,
the IETF had said "Too soon, we'll just leave IPng aside for now;
those interested can take it to the IRTF."
> On balance I think the increase in RG sessions during IETF meetings
> is a very good thing but it has led to an increase in this sort of
> confusion.
Yes.
> At any rate, as someone who's both self-funded and participated
> remotely quite a bit, I don't think that the goal here is to get more
> people to meetings, but rather to make sure that people who are
> actually contributing have the ability to fully participate, whatever
> form that takes (ignoring, for the moment, meeting revenues).
> Meetings are not conferences, they're working meetings.
Correct. But if some people pay only in order to attend and learn,
without contributing, that's OK too. I certainly learn something
every time.
> I also don't know how to communicate more clearly than we have been
> that the IETF is not a membership organization and there is no voting
> - that's a related misunderstanding that just doesn't seem to go
> away.
Yes, but I can see that very occasional attendees will not see
much difference from a formal voting organisation, from the outside
looking in. We don't vote, but some voices seem to be heard better
than others.
Regards
Brian
