gt;
> Kathleen
>
>
>
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 6:05 AM
> To: Ted Hardie
> Cc: IETF
> Subject: Re: Meritocracy, diversity, and leaning on the people you know
>
>
>
>
you, it is basic networking skills
and does work in the IETF.
Thanks,
Kathleen
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart
Bryant
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 6:05 AM
To: Ted Hardie
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Meritocracy, diversity, and leaning on the people you
On 19/04/2013 19:13, Ted Hardie wrote:
As a working group chair, when I stare out at a sea of faces looking
for a scribe, the chances of my asking someone I know produces good
minutes is much higher than my asking someone whose work I don't know.
Think about how this often works in WGs without
Excellent post, Ted. I really like your suggestions, and I think these are the
types of things we should be doing to more widely leverage the talents of
people who are available to participate in the IETF.
Margaret
On Apr 19, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Following a number of the
On 4/19/2013 1:47 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
Nice post.
I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner
circle - which is what I think you're intent is here - would be to randomly
select people to be involved in a short online meeting to discuss the
draft, rather than revi
Hi Hector,
Thanks for your input. I add that we/I need to write down these ideas
(related to IETF Structure progress and IETF Diversity) into an I-D,
because if not they can be forgotten. Restructuring is always an
important task for old WGs/bodies. The community changes every day so
organisations
On 4/20/13 6:12 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> There is much more that can be done, but we are still holding on to a
> version of the past that is keeping the IETF behind.
Behind what?
Melinda
On 4/19/2013 2:13 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> ...
>
There are other methods that may well be better than the two Suresh and I
discussed, but I put these forward as a potentially concrete step that may
help those struggling with this to understand that the end result of this
need not be quotas.
Dear Ted,
I agree with you totally, hope that your suggestion is considered for
progress in our participation (me as newcomer feedback). Our choices
in life is all about awareness,
I just wanted to add that any individual while *participation* with
any body/person in or out IETF, s/he will try to
Ted: Very nice post and good ideas. Thanks.
Jari
On Apr 19, 2013, at 10:31 PM, Ted Hardie
mailto:ted.i...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Dave Cridland
mailto:d...@cridland.net>> wrote:
Nice post.
I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner circle
- which is what I think you're intent is h
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Riccardo Bernardini
wrote:
> I like your analysis. A comment while I am still "warm"
>
> >
> > The first suggestion is a "Newcomer's directorate".
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > The second suggestion is a simple tool that at WG call time (be it last
> call
> > or call f
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Nice post.
>
> I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner
> circle - which is what I think you're intent is here - would be to randomly
> select people to be involved in a short online meeting to discuss the
>
Hi Simon,
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> interesting points indeed. I don't really know whether or not the approach
> you propose might work in practice,
There is certainly a risk there, but I hope we can find ways of increasing
the institutional supp
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Nice post.
>
> I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner
> circle - which is what I think you're intent is here - would be to randomly
> select people to be involved in a short online meeting to discuss the draf
Nice post.
I wonder whether a better mechanism for drawing newcomers into the inner
circle - which is what I think you're intent is here - would be to randomly
select people to be involved in a short online meeting to discuss the
draft, rather than review it in isolation.
It'd be a different kind
Hi Ted,
interesting points indeed. I don't really know whether or not the approach you
propose might work in practice, though.
My personal experience in the IETF is that it is really hard to gain some
'popularity' among the members of this variegated gallery of characters,
especially if you don
I like your analysis. A comment while I am still "warm"
>
> The first suggestion is a "Newcomer's directorate".
>
> (snip)
>
> The second suggestion is a simple tool that at WG call time (be it last call
> or call for adoption) randomly selects a set number of participants from the
> mailing list
Following a number of the threads on diversity and, in particular, on
whether the effort to get a better demographic view of participation will
lead to quotas, I have been increasingly uncomfortable with some of the
arguments which appear to have some presumptions about how diversity and
meritocrac
19 matches
Mail list logo
