I did not like the change of the title which was suggested in diversity list. the first title was related to IETF, because we need to attract more other regions in IETF or to facilitate the improve of other region's participation. The draft's solution was to recommend fellowship (should not be the only marketing way), which made it distract its real value. I suggest to see how this fellowship is coordinated with IETF and how much it attracts (real results needed), this will help the program managers to know how IETF sees the program from the community point of view (not management of ietf or management of the program).
AB On Friday, October 11, 2013, Jari Arkko wrote: > > we need to keep the flexibility of bringing in someone new > > agree > > > But my main issue is that the draft sounds like its trying to take over > and redefine an ISOC program, which I don't think the IETF can or should > do. The ISOC program has a purpose, a history and at least from my > perspective is working pretty well with the budget it has available. I'm > not sure we can actually improve it much. > > agree, of course. at best we can provide input. but it really is an ISOC > program. > > Jari > >
