Melinda,
When I said "the ietf thinks" I reefer about the consciousness of the
IETF as a group.
I disagree with you about meeting location as a factor "openness". I
think that it is an important one to consider. Language is another, but
I am not going there now.
Regards,
as
On 10/11/2012 14:51, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 5:35 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> It's not bitching, it self criticism. I think that the IETF thinks
>> that it is very open but in reality it could do better.
>
> I'm not sure the IETF can "think" anything, but openness is
> an institutional value and goal, and we're sometimes more
> successful and sometimes less. That said, I find it a little
> difficult to believe that meeting location is a particularly
> significant contributor to meeting openness objectives. I'd
> agree that face-to-face meetings have become more important
> to IETF process than they probably should be, but I think it's
> still probably the case that you can be a significant
> contributor without actually attending a meeting.
>
> I think that we haven't done a sufficiently good job of
> acculturating newer participants and that can probably make
> the organization look more opaque and closed than it actually
> is. Most (but not all) working groups don't have enough help
> with document review, and I think that's probably the fast
> path to agency within the IETF. Being a body in a chair at a
> meeting is not.
>
> Melinda
>
