[UA-discuss] [UA-EAI] [Ext] Re: UA-EAI WG charter
Mark Svancarek (CELA)
marksv at microsoft.com
Fri Aug 9 21:25:20 UTC 2019
Jay, my perception is different. I have been involved in the old system, so it's certainly possible that I am just defending the old system out of reflex, but bear with me.
I agree with you that our goal is to get noncompliant code changed. Our other activities are a means to that end.
Coders don't change things unless they are aware of the issue and externally motivated to do it. That motivation comes from multiple sources. New noncompliant code will be created unless new coders are aware. And we can't change anything that we can't measure.
As for resources, I truly wish we could spend more of them on code changes, but we've never been able to find enough subject matter experts willing to do the work for us at any price.
Does that make sense?
From: UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Jay Daley
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 2:09 PM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org; ua-eai at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] [UA-EAI] [Ext] Re: UA-EAI WG charter
I would like to note that I disagree with the recommendations about travel for multiple community members.
The purpose of UASG should be to get non-compliant code changed and we should be using 95% of our resources to that goal. In the last couple of years we have become focused on promotion, branding, outreach, ambassadors, measurement, etc, which are all useful but have only an indirect impact on our goal. We are in danger of 95% of our resources going on these activities and our goal being achieved very, very slowly as a result.
I would like to see travel limited to the chair and vice-chair attending only two icann meetings a year and the rest of our resources directly targeted at getting the code changed.
(sent from my phone)
+64 21 678840
More information about the UA-discuss