On Oct 12, 2013 6:51 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I don't understand your assertion that there is no procedure in the IETF
to
support the existence of a Design Team.
I'd be sorry to see this discussion dragged down a procedural rathole.
Melinda
On 10/10/13 9:49 AM, manning bill wrote:
the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and
where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not).
when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly-
this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the
On 10/10/13 10:52 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's
model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense
you seem to be
On 10/9/13 4:35 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:30 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rough consensus - An agreement by almost everyone that the
proposed
That's a lot like voting, I think.
It's worse than voting, because it encourages people to invite their
friends
On 10/8/13 3:21 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
To my small and somewhat naive mind, the difference between rough
consensus on a topic and a vote on the same topic is something about
winners and losers. In a purely political process, when a set of
parties vote on something and the preponderance
On 10/8/13 9:20 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
FWIW - my personal way of thinking about consensus vd. rough consensus,
please note that it my personal view not a definition.
Consensus - An agreement by everyone in a group that a proposed
solution is the best of all of all possible
On 10/6/13 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
My goal is to publish it as an Informational RFC. It is an
explanation of principles and how they can be applied to productively
move IETF discussions forward. While there is no change to IETF
processes or any presumption that guidance from this document
On 10/6/13 4:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 07/10/2013, at 11:03 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
1. in a natural state; without decoration or other treatment. a
diamond in the rough
2. in difficulties. even before the recession hit, the project was
in the rough
I think he's
On 9/18/13 8:59 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
There have been (counting me) four sitting ADs posting on this 90-email
thread, plus another six or so former ADs, including a former IETF
chair, plus at least six or so WG chairs, plus other participants of
good mind and good hearts. I'm thinking
On 9/17/13 3:56 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Thank you. So how might we raise awareness of ORCID among RfC
contributors and and encourage its use by them?
I'm not sure much needs to be done other than talking with Heather
Flanagan (the RFC Editor), getting her sign-off, and then getting
it into the
On 9/17/13 9:55 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
... and that is my point. One level of indirection might be useful here.
I would prefer to update only one mapping and not go through a list
of RFCs and change the mapping for each document.
I really think that you all are completely over-engineering
indirectly.
It's a way to establish that the author Melinda Shore who
worked at Cisco is the same author Melinda Shore who worked
at the Center for Research Libraries. It is NOT a contact
mechanism, a personal tracking mechanism, etc.
Melinda
On 9/17/13 1:08 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
Having an IETF identity is OK if all you ever publish is in the
IETF. Some of our participants also publish at other SDOs such as
IEEE, W3C, ITU, and quite a few publish Academic papers.
On 9/16/13 6:49 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
That's not to say you can't put any particular URI against your name in
an RFC, mind, but I'd be rather hesitant to leap at mandating a
registration procedure for authors.
I think it's an interesting idea. It might be worth talking
with Heather and
On 9/16/13 1:02 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
If we use ORCID instead of email, we get less strong authentication.
That's not its job - it's there to distinguish between authors
with similar names. As I understand the proposal the intent is
to have it provide additional information, not supplant
On 9/16/13 3:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Fair enough, but adding a public key to the record would enable
authentication too.
I suppose it was inevitable that when it came into the IETF
it would balloon into an overcomplicated mess. Think of it
as one metadata element, not a big blob of
On 9/6/13 4:10 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 6, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
I've noted elsewhere that the current typical key-signing party
methods are very weak. You should sign only the keys of those who
you know well enough to claim you can attest to their identity.
On 9/6/13 5:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
This is what I mean by a high bar. Signing someone's PGP key
should mean I know this person as X, not this person is X.
I have no idea what should means in this context. It seems
to me, from looking at this discussion (as well as from other
discussions
On 9/6/13 6:24 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
It's naive to think that keys are any more trustworthy than this,
because any signature's trustworthiness is only as good as the
trustworthiness of the individual who decides to sign it. If you
trust a key signed by someone you don't know, but who someone
On 9/6/13 7:04 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
It's not at all clear to me that serious trust mechanisms should be
digital at all.
They're not.
Be that as it may, we have an existence proof that
a web of trust is useful—Facebook, G+ and LinkedIn all operate on a
web of trust model, and it works
On 9/6/13 7:45 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
They have different problems, but are inherently less reliable than web of
trust GPG signing. It doesn't scale well, but when done in a defined context
for defined purposes it works quite well. With external CAs you never know
what you get.
Vast
On 9/5/13 7:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm not talking about what implementors and operators and users
should be doing; still less about what legislators should or
shouldn't be doing. I care about all those things, but the question
here is what standards or informational outputs from the
On 9/5/13 8:59 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
side discussion wonders whether bruce may be a bit on the
pollyanna side on this aspect.
That's a really interesting question, and I have no idea what
the answer is. One reason it's interesting is that until
this all broke there was a reasonable assumption
On 9/3/13 6:50 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think that is a given without having pre-emptive blame assignment in the
text.
*Blame*?
I know that I've inadvertently used regional idioms that were hard
for non-native speakers to understand and I've been grateful when
it's been pointed out.
On 9/3/13 6:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I agree that trying to figure things out is a net positive. What I want to
avoid is someone making excuses claiming that since they aren't a native
speaker it's somebody else's problem to understand them.
I'd like to think that we're going to retain
On 8/31/13 10:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
That does seem better, but don't all parties have an obligation to attempt to
communicate clearly?
Yes, but ...
I think it's particularly incumbent on native English speakers to
avoid highly idiomatic or stylized language - English that is not
It seems like this would be a good time for an update. A few
comments:
. I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
may not longer be the case and consequently they should be
made explicit. One that really popped out
On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of
rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that
we are discussing here.
That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude.
Managing the discussion is the
On 8/16/13 9:53 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
As someone who favors charging remote participants, who has paid
most or all of the travel and associated costs for every meeting
I've attended in the last ten plus years, and who doesn't share
in a view of if I can, everyone can, let me make a few
On 8/12/13 11:36 PM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
Anyway, I use Linux, so I guess I will not be able to give my input about it.
I agree in principle (MS document formats are not a suitable document
exchange format for an open standards body) but in truth, it's been
awhile since Open Office hasn't
On 8/6/13 11:58 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
For what it's worth (not much) I would miss the line at the mic.
There are useful conversations that happen within the line that I
think we would lose if the mic followed the speaker, and I also think
that pipelining the people at the mic promotes more
On 8/4/13 11:53 AM, John Levine wrote:
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
More to the point, the objections that are being raised appear
to be bogus and based in a misunderstanding of how the IETF
operates.
Melinda
We're all different, and for my purposes, in all honesty, having
slides unavailable until 45 seconds before a session start hasn't
been an issue as a remote participant. It's definitely aggravating
as a chair, though, since we need to get those uploaded via the
meeting materials manager.
On 8/1/13 1:29 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Consensus for any particular outcome is in the end a judgment call.
Well, yes and no, but this situation strikes me as odd, and probably
a mistake on the part of the chairs. If you can't tell whether or
not you've got consensus, you don't have consensus.
On 8/1/13 12:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
In the case of a WG-forming BOF, it seems to me that a nucleus
of people willing and competent to do the work, and a good set of
arguments why the work needs to be done and how it will make the
Internet better, are more important than any kind of
I have to say that I was very impressed with how the oauth
session went. There was minimal presentation and maximal
discussion, and the discussion was not interrupted until it
started getting circular.
But, I suspect that this is a reflection of the fact that
there's some substantial
On 7/30/13 7:59 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
I don't think that's the problem; I think the problem is that most
users don't realize how much lack of transparency is harming them.
So transparent Internet access isn't a commodity.Transparency
would be cheaper if there were more demand for it, and
On 7/30/13 12:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Users want applications to just work, but they (and many business
managers in our industry) don't understand that when applications
fail unpredictably, it's often because of glitches in what we call
transparency.
I suspect applications are not
On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may
include implementers. Can that be accommodated,
On 7/27/13 3:52 PM, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
What do you mean by conference? too much information inferred in your
term that may confuse others on the list. Will appreciate, if you can
share bit more on it, behind the single term conference that you
particularly don't like.
I love conferences
On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
projectors and screens.
Then I guess it's time for my quarterly I'd be good with that.
Melinda
On 7/27/13 8:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
something closer to conferences,
with poster sessions!
A!
Melinda
On 7/24/13 12:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Yes. I was thinking a bit more generally. For example,
schedule changes during the meeting week, IIR, go to NNall, and
not ietf-announce. As a remote participant, one might prefer
to avoid the usual (and interminable) discussions about coffee
On 7/24/13 10:35 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
These lists are not - AFAIK - intended for meeting participation
anywhere near as much as they are for meeting logisitics.
My experience has been that they're for both, and while
I'll be a remote participant this time I've already
subscribed to the
On 7/11/13 4:14 AM, Hui Deng wrote:
I personally feel that this is maybe one of not easier part for western
people to do in today IETF. and chinese's names sound maybe more
diffcult than other eastern languages.
I know it is for me, and I'm grateful for the draft. I agree
that this is
On 6/27/13 5:08 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
I have attended some IETF meetings remotely and I am not in favor of this
change.
To be honest, I'm skeptical, myself. I have attended a lot of
meetings remotely and I don't think that it provides enough
context to be able to provide the background
On 6/24/13 12:18 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
- What are the subtle differences in meaning between these two
sentences?
I think I recommend is rather clearly different from you should,
in terms of strength and (in the case of normative text) obligation.
I don't think that recommend is useful in the
On 6/19/13 7:16 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Actually I see lots of structural problems -- I just happen to be of the
mindset that working from the bottom up is the only sustainable model
for change.
Don't know about that one. In the US, at least, legal mandates
have typically led social
On 6/19/13 7:26 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/19/13 9:22 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Don't know about that one. In the US, at least, legal mandates
have typically led social change, at least when it comes to civil
rights, etc.
That's a topic for the ietf-philosophy discussion list, methinks
On 6/19/13 7:56 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Why do you believe that my opinions are unexamined? I have been
thinking and reading about social, cultural, and personal change for a
very long time.
You made an assertion that's at least a little ahistorical, you
used it to support an argument
On 6/19/13 8:12 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/19/13 10:00 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/19/13 7:56 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Why do you believe that my opinions are unexamined? I have been
thinking and reading about social, cultural, and personal change
for a very long time.
You
On 6/19/13 10:03 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
Short version, if everyone does what they can to encourage diverse
participation, we won't need legislation to fix the problem.
I'd like it if that were true but I don't think it is. For example,
the majority of academic librarians are women (one
On 6/19/13 10:16 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
It's not clear to me how this example relates to the IETF.
Even in fields in which the overwhelming majority of
practitioners, the majority of people in leadership or
management positions are men. Everybody's got good
intentions - I'd be very surprised if
On 6/19/13 12:40 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
Sorry. That was directed largely at Melinda who is, to the best of
my understanding, an American.
Binational. Thanks for asking.
Melinda
How about a new non-malign WG list?
Melinda
On 6/12/13 3:17 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Hi,
I agree with Warren and disagree with Pete on this issue.
Of course, adding more arguments, being more verbose when expressing
support is very useful. However, I consider the brief comments like
the one made by Russ useful - at least in
On 6/11/13 9:52 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working
groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink
phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for?
Right. We've had some issues with document quality, and I
can think
On 6/11/13 10:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
The IETF last call is for catching things the working group missed,
not for rehashing arguments that were beaten to death in the working
group.
I am not sure I fully understand why we're having this conversation,
or rather why this aspect of the broader
On 6/8/13 10:09 AM, SM wrote:
As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a
decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus.
I don't think it's off-topic. Consensus (rough or otherwise) requires
that at some point people can live with decisions with
On 6/7/13 11:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Rule 1 for complex and divergent mail threads is to change the
Subject header when the subject changes. If you don't do that,
your mail is rather likely to get junked.
I think that IETF last call threads should stay on the main IETF
discussion
On 5/29/13 10:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I see a wedge :-)
The problem is where to stop.
Well, I don't know. Maybe the problem is where to
start. That is to say, I don't know what problem
this document is trying to solve, or if there even
is a problem. I know that we've had some major
On 5/29/13 11:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Which is why this isn't a process document.
Are you sure?
Melinda
On 5/29/13 11:56 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Yes, I'm sure.
Your turn now.
Are you sure?
No, not at all.
Melinda
On 5/30/13 4:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
ultimately call the IETF's legitimacy and long-term future into
question. As you suggest, we may have good vendor participation
but the operators are ultimately the folks who pay the vendor's
bills.
Here in Alaska was the first time I'd worked in an
On 5/30/13 6:21 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
You'd love the Pacific.
Few IETFers get exposed to these kinds of environments.
I'd had no idea. The point here isn't to derogate techies
working in this kind of environment, but that because the
sorts of informal technology and skills transfer
I think this is one of the best discussions of what we're
about that I've seen anywhere, and I'm grateful to John
for working this through.
One thing I'd like to take up further is this:
On 5/29/13 9:23 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Similarly, we sometimes hear it argued that we should accept a
On 5/28/13 6:20 AM, Christian O'Flaherty wrote:
Probably, this lack of social interaction in our region is one of
the main reasons for low participation. Most of latin american
IETFers are currently living outside the region and they engaged in
the IETF when living in the US or Europe. It's
On 5/28/13 3:06 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
The centres for networking industry in Australia are Melbourne and Sydney, in
that order.
It's a bit like IETF 51 being held in Grimsby, not London or Cambridge.
Okay. So, should we be extrapolating from this to what
we can expect from
On 5/28/13 6:27 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Going to Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Mexico City or Santiago will always
split audiences as these are the major tech hubs in the region (also add
Bogota, Lima, San Jose and other cities). So, I think it is not
comparable with Australia.
I actually
On 5/26/13 9:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
I have to say that I don't see one or two meetings in South America
addressing any of these.
I don't, either. However,
Given that the incremental cost to the
participants, compared to meeting in North America, would likely be on
the order of a
On 5/27/13 10:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I also didn't see objection of my comments from the WG. I also didn't
see support of your reply from the WG. (WG decisions are
WG-rough-consensus, not the editors opinion).
Chairs call consensus.
On 5/24/13 8:07 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
I personally am a big fan for going to uninteresting locations in their
off season. Although, perhaps I'm alone in liking Minneapolis in the
winter as an IETF destination...
No, not alone.
At any rate I think that the core questions about participation
On 5/24/13 9:31 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
You are not. Although Vancouver seems to have taken over for Minneapolis.
Feh. There is no winter in Vancouver. On the other hand there are
salmon and steelhead.
Melinda
On 5/23/13 10:30 AM, Alia Atlas wrote:
Never been to Buenos Aires - but it sounds like a great idea.
I'm skeptical that it will change much - it seems likely to me
that we'll get a bunch of one-time attendees and that we'll be
doing really well to get one new person who becomes a continuing
On 5/23/13 5:34 PM, Juliao Braga wrote:
Currently there are three. How many? To twelve meetings per year, for
example!
Sounds like a sure-fire way to shift the participation from
skewing towards working engineers to skewing towards professional
standardizers.
How can we encourage people from
On 5/23/13 6:37 PM, Juliao Braga wrote:
Maybe they can not submit drafts, but can
contribute to foster the knowledge of those who produce drafts or
working as reviewers.
Anyone can submit a draft and anyone can review a draft. The
barrier to that sort of participation is extremely low. So
On 4/29/13 1:11 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
The other thing to remember is that whilst your proportional estimates
are likely to be correct, in a random process you will get long runs of
bias that only average out in the long run.
Right, although if normal statistical fluctuation gives us
a
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 4/13/13 4:09 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
Do you disagree, are you saying that the IETF should only/first try
to address only gender bias?
Clearly not, Lou. For one thing, I've repeatedly said that
we're underperforming on a number of axes - repeatedly, and
for another I've said some number of
On 4/12/2013 10:12 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
I still think that the IETF community at large has no intentional
diversity bias, so the process of discussing and analyzing
diversity in the context of leadership is to help better describe
diversity induced job qualifications as well as
On 4/12/2013 11:04 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
While I've been very reluctant to jump on this topic, I have to ask
what's the basis for this assertion?
I think the numbers are pretty compelling, which is why
I think they would deserve scrutiny if there's the
possibility of remediation if a problem
On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
in our process because that means that the document had a serious
problem and we didn't spot it in the
On 4/12/13 1:26 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
No argument from me, I'm just asking that a comment/position/question
that I don't understand be substantiated.
And I'm telling you that I think the numbers are highly suggestive
of bias. We can take a swing at getting a very rough handle on
that but I'm
On 4/11/2013 8:00 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
The first three question could allow based on self assessment to evaluate
whether
IETF leadership is biased based on diversity stats or not.
There are actually several questions in there. It
would be interesting to know how the pool of people
On 4/11/2013 1:38 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
Suggesting that simply diversity stats across all IETF participants can help
to deduce anything about leadership diversity bias is ignoring qualification
and availability of candidates. Thats why i proposed the questions i would
like to see
in a
Doesn't it strike you as odd that this discussion has moved towards some
sort of tacit/accepted acknowledgment of the role of joke RFCs as
insider/outsider cultural markers rather than just clever bits of writing
that are widely enjoyed? I'm a little surprised to find myself developing
sympathy
Well, the timing of this strikes me as one of those oh moments, following
as quickly on the heels of the diversity discussion. Not so much because
of language and culture issues (although those are unavoidable) but because
it strikes me as kind of unhealthy to use the April Fool RFCs as a tool to
I am absolutely not suggesting changing anything other than the
unfortunate attitude that the right response to someone missing the joke
is to read them out of the meeting/declare them anathema or unworthy or not
members of this community. Your beef isn't with me, it's with Måns.
Melinda
On 4/6/13 1:33 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC
Fix it or ignore it. Wikipedia is neither authoritative nor
reliable.
Melinda
On 3/28/13 5:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Therefore it
seems unlikely that there would be any candidate that the IAB
did not already know about. So whilst I agree in general,
this is not a case that should raise any concerns.
Wow.
Allow me to suggest that even if you think this is true,
On 3/24/13 10:02 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I like what we have so far, but are those connected
processes/information reflected into the produced document? Why
ignoring names of volunteers? I suggest to fix this,
My experience over lo, these many years is that the best way to ensure
that
On 3/24/13 10:28 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Some people never recognise new comers ideas until backed up with old
comer idea. Do you think that is right?
No, I think that is not right.
I brought middlebox work to the IETF as my initial
involvement. It did not go smoothly, but it went,
and
On 3/25/13 8:17 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
or a statement that acknowledgments is not a required section and not
subject to IETF guidance.
Excellent.
Melinda
On 3/24/13 4:55 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
In this way we have connections between inputs otherwise the IETF
system has no connection between its important information.
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got
On 3/24/13 4:55 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
In this way we have connections between inputs otherwise the IETF
system has no connection between its important information.
We have the mailing list archives, we've got the document shepherd
writeups, we've got the IESG evaluation record, we've got
On 3/22/13 6:17 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
Before allowing a new WG to start, ADs seem to make an assessment
of whether there are sufficient volunteers of both kinds to do the
work, whether there is sufficient expertise in the IETF to perform
adequate review of the results and whether there is
On 3/22/13 6:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
FWIW, seems to me you're describing one leg of the elephant
each. From my experience I'd say you both actually have an
appreciation of the overall elephant but that's not coming
out in this kind of thread.
Well, maybe, but it seems to me that he's
On 3/21/13 8:23 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
As I understand and see it, the IESG is running IETF processes,
is mentoring IETF processes (towards WG Chairs, BOFs, individuals
with complaints/appeals), and is trying to keep an eye on the
overall architecture, and put togethe the pieces from reviews
On 3/21/13 9:19 AM, SM wrote:
I welcome feedback from anyone.
All righty, then. I do think that when someone is offering an
opinion on the role of the IESG in moving work through the IETF,
it's helpful if they've actually brought new work to the IETF,
socialized it, negotiated with ADs around
On 3/20/13 3:20 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
While I agree that it helps avoiding a few big vendors bias.
is this really a significant problem _today_, adversely affecting a
non-marginal amount of the current IETF output, and in a fashion where
simply more diversity in the I* leadership would bring a
1 - 100 of 434 matches
Mail list logo
