>>>> The "incentive" that something like SIRS offered was classification as >>>> a senior contributor. This was neither a small point nor a small >>>> benefit (IMO). >>> >>> what was the benefit of becoming a senior contributor? ... > how would this differ from the "technical advisor" title?
In my model, the advisor is an on-going mentor. They are an active participant in the working group. Reviewers are not (necessarily) participants. There is an obvious -- and probably quite appropriate -- view that a reviewer MUST NOT be a participant, lest their review be too distorted by having too much context. In both cases, I would think that neither has any sort of veto. Rather, they must sway by convincing rather than dictating. This applies both to the decision-making by the wg and decision-making by the IESG (about the wg output.) d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
