On 7/25/19 07:37, Keith Moore wrote:
On 7/25/19 10:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I am extremely concerned about a lack of employer diversity among
authors/editors. Anyone who has authored or edited an RFC knows that
that role carries with it tremendous power to influence the output, to
word things in such a way that you like the result. (Yes, the author has
to earn rough consensus, but the author still gets to choose the words.)
In a sense, this is the very job of an author or editor. But when the
authors or editors of RFCs are mostly from a small number of large
companies, those RFCs are likely to represent the interests of those
companies much more than the interests of the wider IETF community or
the Internet as a whole.
That's all true, of course, but it's a fact of life that larger companies
can afford to pay some employees to do substantial amounts of IETF work,
and smaller companies can't. My comment was based on the assumption that
there's no point in being concerned about something that can't be changed.
I guess I think there is some potential for positive change
there if, for example, we can reduce the cost of effective
participation.
One probable way to at least hold down the cost of onsite
participation and of providing remote participation during
meetings is to adjust our expectations about the services
delivered during meetings, which range from the network, to
cookies, to the location of the venue. venue selection and
requirements has quite a bit of work going into it already.
One area that particularly needs feedback at this time is the
meeting network requirements which held a bof this time.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/agenda-105-netrqmts-00
video will appear here
http://ietf105.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recordings#NETRQMTS
there is a mailing list here
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netrqmts
There is intent to have a survey as an outcome of the BOF to
further explore the priorities and needs of the community both
present and remote during meetings.
joel
Keith
