RE: IETF Eurasia
Well one reason is that it has never happened that way and this institution finds it nearly impossible to change even the most minor aspects of its organization. If one dare point out that OASIS and W3C have both adopted a format in which they hold one annual plenary session and Working Groups typically hold two or three additional one or two day meetings a year one can anticipate the result: lengthy condescending lectures on IETF exceptionalism from elder members of the community who consider it their role to bully any impudent pup for the temerity of suggesting that change might be good. We may however find that finances force a change in approach to be considered, particularly if the current weakness in the dollar continues. I think that the absolute minimum number of times that we need to meet en-masse and maintain cohesion as an institution is once a year. And to do that we would have to change our approach to doing work in ways that many people would find unacceptable. From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 29/11/2007 6:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF Eurasia Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at least half of participants are from Europe or Asia. Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? Because there is already a lack of communicaiton between Areas. Not to say that there can't be other smaller meetings as well. Adrian (IETF hotels are too expensive. Book into smaller ones, pay less, and don't get thrown out.) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Eurasia
Since our main source of income is meeting fees, I wonder why you think that financial issues would motivate us to hold fewer meetings... Margaret On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: Well one reason is that it has never happened that way and this institution finds it nearly impossible to change even the most minor aspects of its organization. If one dare point out that OASIS and W3C have both adopted a format in which they hold one annual plenary session and Working Groups typically hold two or three additional one or two day meetings a year one can anticipate the result: lengthy condescending lectures on IETF exceptionalism from elder members of the community who consider it their role to bully any impudent pup for the temerity of suggesting that change might be good. We may however find that finances force a change in approach to be considered, particularly if the current weakness in the dollar continues. I think that the absolute minimum number of times that we need to meet en-masse and maintain cohesion as an institution is once a year. And to do that we would have to change our approach to doing work in ways that many people would find unacceptable. From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 29/11/2007 6:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF Eurasia Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at least half of participants are from Europe or Asia. Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? Because there is already a lack of communicaiton between Areas. Not to say that there can't be other smaller meetings as well. Adrian (IETF hotels are too expensive. Book into smaller ones, pay less, and don't get thrown out.) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF Eurasia
If the meeting fees are in dollars and the costs are in local currency the profits will be squeezed. Only part of the meeting fee is profit for the IETF and an even smaller part of the attendee costs. It cost my employer roughly $2,000 for me to attend the Vancouver IETF for two days. That is $6,000 for the IETF to make $1000. If costs rise beyond a certain point we will have fewer people coming for three meetings a year. If we get to a point where only the hard core are attending all three meetings and most people attend only two meetings a year it will be more profitable to reduce the number of meetings. If we had 0 meetings a year the profits to the IETF would be zero. If we had 52 meetings a year the profits would be zero. The maximizing point on the curve may be at 3 meetings today, it might even be higher (but I seriously doubt that it is 5 or more), but it is also possible that at some point it will be 2. -Original Message- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:33 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF Eurasia Since our main source of income is meeting fees, I wonder why you think that financial issues would motivate us to hold fewer meetings... Margaret On Dec 6, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: Well one reason is that it has never happened that way and this institution finds it nearly impossible to change even the most minor aspects of its organization. If one dare point out that OASIS and W3C have both adopted a format in which they hold one annual plenary session and Working Groups typically hold two or three additional one or two day meetings a year one can anticipate the result: lengthy condescending lectures on IETF exceptionalism from elder members of the community who consider it their role to bully any impudent pup for the temerity of suggesting that change might be good. We may however find that finances force a change in approach to be considered, particularly if the current weakness in the dollar continues. I think that the absolute minimum number of times that we need to meet en-masse and maintain cohesion as an institution is once a year. And to do that we would have to change our approach to doing work in ways that many people would find unacceptable. From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 29/11/2007 6:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IETF Eurasia Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at least half of participants are from Europe or Asia. Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? Because there is already a lack of communicaiton between Areas. Not to say that there can't be other smaller meetings as well. Adrian (IETF hotels are too expensive. Book into smaller ones, pay less, and don't get thrown out.) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Eurasia
On Dec 6, 2007 8:59 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only part of the meeting fee is profit for the IETF and an even smaller part of the attendee costs. It cost my employer roughly $2,000 for me to attend the Vancouver IETF for two days. That is $6,000 for the IETF to make $1000. Unfortunately, this is why I haven't made it to nearly as many meetings as I'd like to have over the years. I'm self-employed, with a very small firm, and it's nearly impossible for me to afford it. However, I'm looking forward to this coming March. With the event being only two hours from my home, it'll be a lot easier well, except that gas prices will probably cost me almost as much as a cheap hotel. -- Daniel P. Brown [Phone Numbers Go Here!] [They're Hidden From View!] If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Eurasia
On 2007-11-29, at 6:28, ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked, why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? They don't. Several WGs are holding interim meetings between the IETF meetings. I'm not sure if there have been joint interims with multiple WGs attending, but that could make sense if there's a difficult piece of work that they need to agree on. Our rules allow this. Lars ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Eurasia
At 10:34 AM 11/30/2007, Lars Eggert wrote: I'm not sure if there have been joint interims with multiple WGs attending, but that could make sense if there's a difficult piece of work that they need to agree on Geopriv and Ecrit had a joint meeting a couple of years ago that was mostly attended by folks that do SIP and SIPPING too. It was a productive meeting. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IETF Eurasia
Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at least half of participants are from Europe or Asia. Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? Why can't the IETF hold partial meetings in Europe and Asia? This would probably mean more IETF meetings but nobody has to go to all of them. Essentially, I am suggesting that WGs with a lot of participants in Europe or Asia should be able to band together and hold local IETF meetings leveraging the same IETF secretariat services as the full meetings. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Eurasia
Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at least half of participants are from Europe or Asia. Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? Because there is already a lack of communicaiton between Areas. Not to say that there can't be other smaller meetings as well. Adrian (IETF hotels are too expensive. Book into smaller ones, pay less, and don't get thrown out.) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF Eurasia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly useful for people from the Security Area to look in on Applications, or for Transport and RAI folks to understand the workings of the layers beneath them and their users, for example. That doesn't make for a has to, but it seems like a good reason to choose to, from my perspective. On Nov 29, 2007, at 6:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe I should elaborate. In several WG where I am active at least half of participants are from Europe or Asia. Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? Why can't the IETF hold partial meetings in Europe and Asia? This would probably mean more IETF meetings but nobody has to go to all of them. Essentially, I am suggesting that WGs with a lot of participants in Europe or Asia should be able to band together and hold local IETF meetings leveraging the same IETF secretariat services as the full meetings. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFHTp9rbjEdbHIsm0MRAml5AJ4/3KWm3YqTs7AEoqCFc/dGAj3CzQCgmX6K DJZ/qBt256GVy1NdYAwC2SU= =UnJw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF Eurasia
Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly useful for people from the Security Area to look in on Applications, or for Transport and RAI folks to understand the workings of the layers beneath them and their users, for example. That doesn't make for a has to, but it seems like a good reason to choose to, from my perspective. I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked, why do *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? Smaller meetings held outside North America could be located in smaller cheaper hotels, and would encourage wider participation in the IETF. In fact, smaller meetings in North America would achieve the same ends. I'm not suggesting getting rid of the existing monolithic meetings, but adding another type of meeting that is smaller, cheaper to attend, and held in cities/countries that are far from the USA but closer to people who should be more involved in the IETF. For instance, Pune and Bangalore India, Moscow and Ekaterinburg Russia, Dalian and Shanghai China as well as places like Helsinki, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Seoul. Note that smaller regional meetings still provide the opportunities for some crosstalk, even if the variety of WG choices to attend will be smaller. And it increases the amount of crosstalk and cross-fertilization between people who regularly work in the IETF and those who have not done IETF work because they have not had the opportunity to see it in action, face to face. Note also that RIPE does something along these lines with their regional meetings having more focus on education. I expect that an IETF regional meeting would also have to have more focus on education since a higher proportion of first-timers would attend. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF Eurasia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? || ||| I can tell you why we do - crosstalk. It can be incredibly useful ||| for people from the Security Area to look in on Applications, or for ||| Transport and RAI folks to understand the workings of the layers ||| beneath them and their users, for example. ||| ||| That doesn't make for a has to, but it seems like a good reason to ||| choose to, from my perspective. || || I agree with your reasoning. I should have asked, why do || *ALL* IETF meetings have to be monolithic and all-inclusive? || || Smaller meetings held outside North America could be located || in smaller cheaper hotels, and would encourage wider || participation in the IETF. In fact, smaller meetings in || North America would achieve the same ends. || || I'm not suggesting getting rid of the existing monolithic || meetings, but adding another type of meeting that is || smaller, cheaper to attend, and held in cities/countries || that are far from the USA but closer to people who should be || more involved in the IETF. For instance, Pune and Bangalore || India, Moscow and Ekaterinburg Russia, Dalian and Shanghai || China as well as places like Helsinki, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Seoul. || || Note that smaller regional meetings still provide the || opportunities for some crosstalk, even if the variety of WG || choices to attend will be smaller. And it increases the || amount of crosstalk and cross-fertilization between people || who regularly work in the IETF and those who have not done || IETF work because they have not had the opportunity to see || it in action, face to face. || || Note also that RIPE does something along these lines with || their regional meetings having more focus on education. I || expect that an IETF regional meeting would also have to have || more focus on education since a higher proportion of first-timers || would attend. Wouldn't the regional meetings you are suggesting have a totally different focus and be a different type of event all together compared to the main meetings currently? I would expect such regional meetings to have a focus on educating the local public about the IETF and be about increasing participation but not including any actual work on IETF content. Believe such regional meetings would be a great idea as a means to facilitate mentoring of future participants and encouraging new blood into the organization. Darryl (Dassa) Lynch ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
