Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?

Mark,

With 6man taking on new work, that is outside of where 6man traditionally has worked new participants are both expected and necessary. 

Be that the alt-mark work, bier or segment routing. 
6man has evolved into the intarea wg for IPv6 related work. 
Cheers 
Ole

> On 30 May 2020, at 14:45, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 19:26, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>> 
>> HI Mark,
>> 
>> So what is your recommendation ?
>> 
>> What should make an individual eligible by your standards to express an opinion on adoption or last call of any proposal in 6man or any WG?
>> 
> 
> Since this is a group that does work ("working group"), I think it is
> fair to expect some evidence of contribution to the work the group
> does, such as active involvement in previous working group mailing
> list discussions, authored or co-authored Internet Drafts relevant to
> the working group's purpose, or mentions in working group relevant ID
> acknowledgement sections indicating off-line communication and
> contribution with the author(s) regarding the ID.
> 
> It doesn't seem fair to me that people who haven't contributed work to
> the group get a say in what work the group does or does not do.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> If someone is following SPRING and 6MAN just by reading list archives and he sees an adoption call - by your standards he can not one time voice his opinion ? Very interesting ...
>> 
>> In fact 6man is open also for non subscribers making it very welcoming to anyone to send an email even without joining the WG list.
>> 
>> Sure - in the past I personally experienced folks from a vendor subscribing and voting with an artificial name yet silly enough to use their company internal mailer domain - pretending he is an operator, but those would be rather ugly exceptions then a rule.
>> 
>> Thx a lot,
>> R.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:48 AM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Do you think somebody who spent many hours of their own time preparing
>>> and presenting this at the AusNOG 2015 conference wants to discourage
>>> IETF participation, unless it is trying to influence group consensus
>>> via membership stacking and using ring-ins (Australian for non-genuine
>>> members)?
>>> 
>>> "Why you should read RFCs and Internet Drafts (and what you need to
>>> know to do so)"
>>> https://www.ausnog.net/sites/default/files/ausnog-2015/presentations/1.4_Mark_Smith_AusNOG2015.pdf
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 01:08, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 28, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am questioning if we are seeing a growth in participation – or a blatant stacking of the floor with people who have never set foot on the lists and will never will again.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> (No hat)
>>>> 
>>>> I’m concerned about how welcoming this might be to new participants who perhaps have a legitimate problem to be solved that they discover in the operations of a network.  This above text doesn’t reflect a welcoming environment, nor one where perhaps someone has something valuable to contribute in a single area of expertise of operations.
>>>> 
>>>> I’m going to bookmark this thread for a reminder next time someone asks me about if the IETF is welcoming to newcomers.
>>>> 
>>>> - Jared
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------