[LAC-TF] [Ietf-lac] [lacnog] RFC8981 y el maradonianismo (Fwd: Fwd: RFC 8981 on Temporary Address Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6)
fgont at si6networks.com
Mon Mar 1 20:48:17 -03 2021
[For the casual reader, we're discussing:
On 1/3/21 18:06, Simone Ferlin wrote:
> I mentioned some initiatives to Fernando such as the waiver for the
> remote meetings (that should imho be made permanent) and the shmoo doc
> that is a small water drop in a hot stone.
Agreed. In addition, some similar option should be provided for f2f
> The IETF could likewise put
> some budget aside to fund authors from the LAC region with docs to be
> present in a physical meeting (similarly to the funding available at
> IRTF/ANRP fronts).
Well, the Internet Society could do it if they want it (not that they
are running out of money).
Unfortunately, and ironically, they had a program that had a rather
flawed operation model. And rather than fixing the problems in the
program, they removed the program itself (!).
Some might envision that this could also be done by Programa Frida
> Lastly, language: I have been in some meetings were the presenter was
> intimidated by the audience bcs of insufficient good English to catch in
> a discussion at the mic or even hostile language.
I've experienced that multiple times.
Ironically, it looks like the IETF started a "TERM" working group, and
they somehow think that by banning a few words here and there, you get
"inclusive language". Ironic, isn't it?
> Maybe the most vivid
> experience was a Japanese presenting about DCTCP and the TSV WG-chair
> did nothing to reduce the pressure on her.
Do you recall the meeting where this happened?
> There is a certain tolerance
> to some behavior that would be otherwise reported if you belong to some
Couldn't agree more with this. :-)
> They seem to have a hard time believing that you (belonging to
> the silo) could be doing a bad job in the community and not just
> polishing your ego or backscratching your friends. I believe the IETF
> needs a committee that starts cleaning up this sort of bad language
> and/or behavior with power to ban a member or WG chair for meeting(s) or
> assuming any other function.
One of the main problems is that essentially the same group controls
most aspects. So a first step seems to be to have a limited group of
players running the show. -- i.e., avoid power from being concentrated
in a small set of individuals from a small set of big tech firms.
> Finally, people of the same organization holding tokens to others of the
> same organization and just moving chair among them, pulling the next one
> of the same or, when their term is over. It shouldn’t be allowed
> consecutive terms of people coming from the same affiliation.
In fact, I think there should be a limit of one IESG member per
organization, and a similar type of limit on WG chairs. (e.g. see the
proposal in Section 6.2 of:
e-mail: fgont at si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
More information about the LACTF