Re: On diversity in the NomCom
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 16 July 2020 03:01 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2336E3A0AD4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 20:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] 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 1LidsnOza597 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 20:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA0E03A0ACD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 20:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jvu9A-000JGy-87; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:01:20 -0400
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 23:01:14 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: On diversity in the NomCom
Message-ID: <2D8F8708458BF390168BD5EC@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sy+a=ziSH-D8Q+wQLDA6rEXg2SfiE+4V7trr2z20kQs9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7429392e-a411-4c40-8fa9-f03de558b7ca@dogfood.fastmail.com> <CAChr6Sweag6G2sfdOrpGUZnPybK4eqn-EHFVHMgSv5V+MtHcow@mail.gmail.c om> <d3187a20-76a8-0ef9-d32f-6b8e400a0d30@gmail.com> <ee517835-1ad4-e2c0-a33b-e194f7c37f95@gmail.com> <CAChr6SxXwKwwtXxL+9f2Zz8kufpnOLmHHkK-dY6PC+k9mNE4+w@mail.gmail.com> <16772aec-9ead-3658-16c8-dfbcdfa19edc@gmail.com> <CAChr6Sy+a=ziSH-D8Q+wQLDA6rEXg2SfiE+4V7trr2z20kQs9Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1AONjJtKu8K5wcH9mp7G8BLvsiw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 03:01:23 -0000
--On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 16:39 -0700 Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote: > Area Director and WG chair time is a real cost, and I would > advocate reducing that commitment as well. Perhaps the IETF > should no longer publish Informational or Experimental RFCs. > Internet-Drafts are good enough for that. FWIW,... Of course, the relatively new rules requiring IETF consensus for Informational and Experimental documents in the IETF stream take us in exactly the opposite direction. I also note that many other SDOs publish informative, non-standard, documents in the form of technical reports and that things we would call Experimental (or our original definition of Proposed Standard) show up as things "for trial use". So, again, fwiw, we are not the only, or even the first, body to conclude that formal review, consensus, and publication of such documents is a practical necessity. It may be the the most effective way to reduce AD and WG Chair workload and assorted overhead costs --if we really want to do that-- would be to take a careful and critical look at how much we can, and want to, actually get done, holding ourselves to a higher standard about what work gets chartered/ authorized and far more quickly killing off WGs that are not productive. I vaguely remember a proposal by a group of people including Dave Crocker along those lines long ago and wonder if it would be worth finding and giving another look. But we are getting fairly far from the "diversity" topic and the Nomcom. john john
- On diversity in the NomCom Bron Gondwana
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Stewart Bryant
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Toerless Eckert
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Christian Huitema
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Tommy Pauly
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Pete Resnick
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Rob Sayre
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Melinda Shore
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Brian E Carpenter
- RE: On diversity in the NomCom Andrew Campling
- RE: On diversity in the NomCom John C Klensin
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Rob Sayre
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Eliot Lear
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Toerless Eckert
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom John C Klensin
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Brian E Carpenter
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Rob Sayre
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom John C Klensin
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Rob Sayre
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Salz, Rich
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Joel Halpern
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Toerless Eckert
- Re: On diversity in the NomCom Brian E Carpenter