|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
At 07:41 27-04-2012, Yoav Nir wrote:These are the results from 2006:
After each meeting, Ray sends out a survey to all participants. The results from the latest one:
When were you born?
Before 1950 2.9%
1950 - 1960 16.6%
1961 - 1970 33.7%
1971 - 1980 32.8%
After 1980 14.0%
Before 1950 6.8%
1950 - 1960 24.0%
1961 - 1970 33.9%
1971 - 1980 33.6%
After 1980 1.8%
Before 1950 3.8%
1950 - 1960 21.0%
1961 - 1970 30.7%
1971 - 1980 37.0%
After 1980 7.6%Yes.
I think an earlier survey had the 1971-1980 crowd inch past the 1961-1970 one, but it does seem like the 30-50 age groups dominate. I don't believe you really are among the youngest, and
At 07:59 27-04-2012, Dave Cridland wrote:
I think in general, the way to ensure the IETF is at the centre of
internet developments is to ensure it is a developer's organization,
as well as an SDO, and unfortunately it's lost this connection - if
The IETF likes having a bad reputation.
you want to get some advice for that mail client you're writing, the
IETF probably wouldn't help if you asked, and certainly wouldn't
spring to mind as the place to ask.
Age = 100 - port_num
At 08:05 27-04-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote:
Many of the people doing the real work in CoRE are in their 20s, or have left that age
DNS 47I would say that new protocols in one area tends to attract younger folks. For existing protocols, there is the aging factor shunning the younger folks away.
PS.: Please, don't take any of this seriously. Except for the CoRE age statistics.
Dave Cridland's observations also definitely don't apply to CoRE, except that we do have the stunning range of experience that makes the IETF so valuable.
IAB 12 M / 1 F
At 08:08 27-04-2012, Mary Barnes wrote:
Personally, I think IETF has far more of an issue when it comes to cultural and gender diversity than it does with not having enough younger folks. This is particularly visible in the leadership.
IESG 15 M
IAOC 8 M / 1 F
RSOC 9 M
RTG WGs - 4 F
INT WGs - 2 F
OPS WGs - 2 F
RAI WGs - 2 F
SEC WGs - 1 F
TSV WGs - 1 F
APP WGs - all M
Mary Barnes is the only participant who mentions the gender problem. As such, I gather that the IETF does not have a gender problem. :-)
Based on the above, it could be said that the IETF will keep aging for the next 10 years.
At 08:57 27-04-2012, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
the politics or underlying needs of the "customer" population. The
federal government of the United States was dominated by the clique of
its revolutionary leaders for 40 years, and hasn't had much trouble
recruiting enough new blood to maintain its power (if not its
At 10:13 27-04-2012, Melinda Shore wrote:
I didn't go to meetings for some number of years and when Iwhom are young. It seems to me that a static participant
started going again I saw a *lot* of new faces, not all of
base would clearly be more of an issue than age, per se.
A static participant base encourages the privatization of working groups. Instead of age, one could look at the number of meetings attended:
2 - 5 18.2%
6 - 10 16.8%
> 10 58.4%
2 - 5 20.0%
6 - 10 16.3%
> 10 55.0%
If over 50% of the attendees is static, there is an aging process. Newcomers may be around 15%. Someone mentioned that there is a feeling of exclusion instead of inclusion.An institution that cannot recruit younger members is called a retirement home.
At 07:06 27-04-2012, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
People can argue about process, RFC formats and governance but it
should be beyond argument that any institution that cannot recruit
younger members is going to die.
Some time back, a saying was posted to this mailing list:
"Please be patient with the old folks"
P.S. Phillip made a second comment. There are some parallels with Operation Legacy.