Re: [Pesci-discuss] Section 6 comments

Jari Arkko wrote:
...
> I definately want to keep my ability to comment on and
> affect proposals. Maybe it helps that the discussion
> will be in plenary/ietflist instead of some obscure and
> ever-changing wg/mailinglist... most of the what we need
> is a statement from the troops who actually do IETF
> stuff, not from the few process fanatics or parts of
> existing management...

Violent agreement. We need input from the whole community
with deep IETF experience, such as WG chairs and prolific
contributors, but we're not likely to get all of them signing
up for a YAP WG (Yet Another Process WG).

> sometimes it feels that the
> discussion (as well as mike time in plenaries) is
> more or hijacked by a select few.

I think you mean a self-selected few, to be honest. There are
people who've stayed with the process discussion for many years,
and I think they are largely also prolific technical contributors.
The challenge is to get *more* such people engaged, if we are to
succeed in making changes.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss