Re: [Mtgvenue] New Draft: draft-elkins-mtgvenue-participation-metrics

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/13/16 2:35 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
>> On Jul 13, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Melinda Shore
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/13/16 12:07 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>>> So on drafts, I would similarly go for "simple": if you post a
>>> draft, you have participated.
>>
>> I have a few concerns about the draft, and one of the primary ones
>> is that I'm hopeful that "participation" is being defined in
>> service of the broader goal of figuring out who ought to be at
>> meetings, but I'm not sure it is.
>
> I *think* the discussion has to do with where meetings should occur,
> based on the rubric that meetings should happen in places where we
> have participants - "so who is a participant". "Where meetings should
> occur" is central to the charter, whether IETF participation is
> directly so or not.

I think so, as well, but I have a personal concern about meetings
being effective, and being places where we do things that can't
be done on mailing lists or by use of other mechanisms, and I'm
not sure that what's under discussion captures that.  As chair
of this particular working group I have concerns about whether or
not we should be defining what a "participant" is, both as a matter
of scope and as a matter of not heading into ratholes.  That said I do
think metrics can be extremely useful, so I'm interested to
see where this discussion goes.

Melinda