Hi Jari,
At 11:22 24-09-2013, IETF Chair wrote:
You are referring to attendance and authoring RFCs? I agree, of
course. I apologize for using a metric that is, at best, partial. My
only defense is that it was what I had easily available :-( I do
realise that real engagement from different types
On 9/24/2013 1:22 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
SM:
Thanks for the feedback.
I read the article. As a comment about the last paragraph, the metric being
used is not the best in my humble opinion.
You are referring to attendance and authoring RFCs? I agree, of course. I
apologize for using a metric
SM:
Thanks for the feedback.
> I read the article. As a comment about the last paragraph, the metric being
> used is not the best in my humble opinion.
You are referring to attendance and authoring RFCs? I agree, of course. I
apologize for using a metric that is, at best, partial. My only def
Hi Jari,
At 03:10 20-09-2013, IETF Chair wrote:
One of things that I feel is important for the chair to do is to
talk to various IETF contributors - not just on this list! :-) - and
try to understand what issues they have, either technical or
otherwise. Here's a small overview report of my rece
Issues: OK lets start here...
1)Structure and Political Representation inside the IETF
Bluntly the IETF@IETF WG is a silo which has erected a wall around
itself to make it the controlling power - the problem is its failure to
provide proper integration and acceptance practices for all othe
One of things that I feel is important for the chair to do is to talk to
various IETF contributors - not just on this list! :-) - and try to understand
what issues they have, either technical or otherwise. Here's a small overview
report of my recent effort to talk to various participants and org
