Re: [123attendees] Re: [122attendees] Toward Inclusive Participation – Community Dialogue on Venue Selection (draft-attoumani-ietf-inclusion)

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 12:50 PM Laurence Lundblade <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> +` 1 to both Michael’s and Robert's comments.
>

Same.

I do think the IETF's problem with inclusivity is made worse by the
expensive meetings necessary for access to the hallway track, but that is
merely one problem among many. It seems obvious to me that there will never
be a perfectly level playing field (and we should be careful to heed the
lessons of Harrison Bergeron in our attempts to level it) but lots could be
done to make it easier for new folks with new ideas to contribute. But at
the same time let's not fool ourselves into thinking the barriers are all
within the control of the IETF or existing participants to solve. Getting
involved in standards development to the point where one can make an actual
contribution is *hard* and requires application of time and real effort,
whether you are on a company expense account or not.

One bright spot is that remote participation has improved the experience
for both remote and in-person attendees by at the very least making it
clear who is speaking at the mic. The remote experience is frankly about as
good as I could imagine short of actual telepresence and holo-Dukes walking
the hallways. But with the excellence of Meetecho in 2025, we may have hit
the point of diminishing returns on remote participation: other aspects of
the participant experience likely have lower-hanging fruit.

Kyle