Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Tue, 26 April 2016 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E682812D1B3 for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 05:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ttdlbcGGk-vU for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 05:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2AC412D1BA for <diversity@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2016 05:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3QCnuYd022372 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 05:49:56 -0700
To: Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, SM <sm@resistor.net>, nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com, diversity@ietf.org
References: <57151C55.30206@gmail.com> <746128222.2295531.1461009032633.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160418172423.1071c670@resistor.net> <571631EA.9010706@si6networks.com> <5716354B.6030106@dcrocker.net> <571F47DF.8070603@cis-india.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <571F63EC.6080204@bbiw.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 05:49:48 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <571F47DF.8070603@cis-india.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 26 Apr 2016 05:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/xaU-AtLV0edIUP9h1t_7FqX09Uw>
Cc: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Christian O'Flaherty <oflaherty@isoc.org>, Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Participation in active IETF work
X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <diversity.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/diversity/>
List-Post: <mailto:diversity@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:50:09 -0000

On 4/26/2016 3:50 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> [2016-04-19 06:40:27 -0700]:
>> If the IETF did most or all of its work at face to face meetings, your
>> assessment would be correct.  But it doesn't.  Or at least, it is not
>> supposed to.
>
> It would be great if the theory could be put to the test by cancelling
> all IETF meetings for two years and seeing if that impacts IETF work.
>
> If IETF work would hardly be affected, then yes, the theory holds.  If
> that is not true, perhaps it is time we revised the theory?


That does not test the theory, since the theory is about 'most', not 
'all'.  The real test is to peruse existing working group mailing lists 
and compare the extent of substantive work done there, compared against 
the ground covered during the working group's face to face meetings.

There has always been need of face to face meetings, to augment the work 
on the mailing list.  It permits far more efficient exchanges for 
exploring and resolving barriers to progress.  It also facilitates 
cross-communication among different efforts, albeit informally.

The question is about balance, not about eliminating any one form of 
meeting.

d/

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net