Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAkwH0bIACgkQE5f5cImnZrsBFgCeNkKEg9OHTahYBvH1XqBpKoMY
BWAAn2bE10b4Un3JKsY2VLtZHq0PY1Og
=6NUP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, Henning,
(speaking as TCCC chair)
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> I actually see this as an opportunity for the TCCC to provide value to the
> community, so I'm not quite sure why this is being pushed outside the TCCC tent.
It's precisely because the tenor of the list appears, on this issue, to be "we
don't want to be limited by ComSoc edicts, and don't like top-down control over
what we can do".
> But maybe this can yield a more interesting discussion as to what the role of
> TCCC is, given that the information dissemination role is becoming less
> important (and, in the case of CFPs, arguably more of an annoyance than a
> service) and few technical discussions take place within its context (as, I'm
> guessing, in all the other ComSoc TCs, so I'm not picking on TCCC).
I can tell you where I spend most of my time, FWIW:
- representing TCCC interests to the ComSoc
- processing requests for TCCC endorsements (Joerg handles most of that now,
but it took a lot of time to put in place, e.g., to create and confirm the rules
for endorsement, and to coordinate 'who goes first' with the ComSoc)
- answering policy questions on this list ;-)
I'd be glad to see the list get back to technical discussion (speaking both as
chair and as an individual, FWIW).
>I realize that the TCCC officers perform a very valuable role of quality
> assurance by providing the imprimatur for cosponsored conferences, but we
> probably don't need much of a membership for that...
See above.
**speaking now as an individual**
One of the challenges is the nature of these lists. I have been chair of ITC,
TCGN (now TCHSN), and now TCCC, and helped create email and endorsement policies
for each of these. As many of you know, I have also run the end2end-interest
list for many years, and now 'own' it since it is no longer part of the IRTF.
Each of these lists has its own character, partly determined by previous
policies. TCCC tends to be the most open list where CFPs can be posted, but
there are still limits - for-profit meetings are prohibited, and posts can't
misrepresent IEEE/ComSoc relationships. Note that the latter is true regardless
of where posted, but doing so on IEEE lists is more likely to be noted.
I run a lot of mailing lists for the community; Henning runs many resources as
well. The two of us are not the only ones who can carry this load - it's fine
for others to jump in too ;-)
However, running this as part of the TCCC seems to entangle us too much with
IEEE and ComSoc policies in ways that are difficult to address (requiring
attendance at Board of Governors' meetings, occurring only twice yearly). I
would be glad for TCCC to provide as many services as we have volunteers to
support, but in this case, I think it might be useful to consider other options.
JOe
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment