Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 2011-10-24 18:58 Peter Saint-Andre said: I've used it for various meetings (e.g., W3C/IETF coordination calls) and it's super. I've suggested to the tools team that they look into installing an instance. Etherpad has now been installed on one of the tools servers, and a link to a notes document has been set up for all WGs with an agenda for the current meeting on the 'minutes' page for each WG. The document is also visible in an embedded frame as long as no official minutes has been submitted. Have a look at the minutes page for CLUE, for instance: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/minutes Best regards, Henrik On 10/24/11 10:56 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: We've come a long way. That would make sense to me. Spencer It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had the chance to correct things I wasn't getting right, but the volume of my notes swamped the ability of anyone else to use the jabber room for discussion, asking questions, raising hands ... IMHO, something like Etherpad is better than a chatroom for collaborative note-taking. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote: On 2011-10-24 18:58 Peter Saint-Andre said: I've used it for various meetings (e.g., W3C/IETF coordination calls) and it's super. I've suggested to the tools team that they look into installing an instance. Etherpad has now been installed on one of the tools servers, and a link to a notes document has been set up for all WGs with an agenda for the current meeting on the 'minutes' page for each WG. The document is also visible in an embedded frame as long as no official minutes has been submitted. Have a look at the minutes page for CLUE, for instance: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/minutes I have made sure that the CLUE WG is aware of this. Why not keep this as supplemental materials even once the official minutes are posted ? Why not include the jabber logs the same way ? By the way, Paul Hoffman, whom I am sure most of you know, has been tasked with figuring out functional specifications for Remote Participation Services. If you have suggestions on how we can further improve remote participation, please let him know. Regards Marshall Best regards, Henrik On 10/24/11 10:56 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: We've come a long way. That would make sense to me. Spencer It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had the chance to correct things I wasn't getting right, but the volume of my notes swamped the ability of anyone else to use the jabber room for discussion, asking questions, raising hands ... IMHO, something like Etherpad is better than a chatroom for collaborative note-taking. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 11/9/2011 10:47 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Why not keep this as supplemental materials even once the official minutes are posted ? Why not include the jabber logs the same way ? +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Hi Marshall, On 2011-11-09 15:47 Marshall Eubanks said the following: On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote: On 2011-10-24 18:58 Peter Saint-Andre said: I've used it for various meetings (e.g., W3C/IETF coordination calls) and it's super. I've suggested to the tools team that they look into installing an instance. Etherpad has now been installed on one of the tools servers, and a link to a notes document has been set up for all WGs with an agenda for the current meeting on the 'minutes' page for each WG. The document is also visible in an embedded frame as long as no official minutes has been submitted. Have a look at the minutes page for CLUE, for instance: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/minutes I have made sure that the CLUE WG is aware of this. Why not keep this as supplemental materials even once the official minutes are posted ? I have no intention of throwing any notes away :-) but just thought I'd archive them for each meeting for now, once official meetings have been submitted. It should be rather easy to make those archived documents available from the regular minutes page if desired, though. Why not include the jabber logs the same way ? The jabber logs are organized with one log per day, so figuring out the right link based on the meeting number isn't perfectly trivial. Also, I'm not sure those logs are used sufficiently often that such a link merits a place in the regular link menu on the status pages. On the tools agenda (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/) I provide a link to the jabber log directory with the jabber log icon (lightbulb + log paper image), and if people find it worthwhile, I could certainly work at linking to the logs that matter in some intelligent way from the minutes pages. As an example of the jabber logs, the clue logs are at: http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/clue/ Best regards, Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote: Hi Marshall, On 2011-11-09 15:47 Marshall Eubanks said the following: On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote: On 2011-10-24 18:58 Peter Saint-Andre said: I've used it for various meetings (e.g., W3C/IETF coordination calls) and it's super. I've suggested to the tools team that they look into installing an instance. Etherpad has now been installed on one of the tools servers, and a link to a notes document has been set up for all WGs with an agenda for the current meeting on the 'minutes' page for each WG. The document is also visible in an embedded frame as long as no official minutes has been submitted. Have a look at the minutes page for CLUE, for instance: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/minutes I have made sure that the CLUE WG is aware of this. Why not keep this as supplemental materials even once the official minutes are posted ? I have no intention of throwing any notes away :-) but just thought I'd archive them for each meeting for now, once official meetings have been submitted. It should be rather easy to make those archived documents available from the regular minutes page if desired, though. Why not include the jabber logs the same way ? The jabber logs are organized with one log per day, so figuring out the right link based on the meeting number isn't perfectly trivial. Also, I'm not sure those logs are used sufficiently often that such a link merits a place in the regular link menu on the status pages. I would not expect you to do this, but this would be appropriate for a future RFP in this area (assuming we decide this is a good idea). Regards Marshall On the tools agenda (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/) I provide a link to the jabber log directory with the jabber log icon (lightbulb + log paper image), and if people find it worthwhile, I could certainly work at linking to the logs that matter in some intelligent way from the minutes pages. As an example of the jabber logs, the clue logs are at: http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/clue/ Best regards, Henrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Why not include the jabber logs the same way ? The jabber logs are organized with one log per day, so figuring out the right link based on the meeting number isn't perfectly trivial. Also, I'm not sure those logs are used sufficiently often that such a link merits a place in the regular link menu on the status pages. On the tools agenda (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/) I provide a link to the jabber log directory with the jabber log icon (lightbulb + log paper image), and if people find it worthwhile, I could certainly work at linking to the logs that matter in some intelligent way from the minutes pages. I, at least, wouldn't mind having it be manual: if a chair could flag a jabber log to be included in a list of jabber logs linked from the WG tools page, perhaps with the most recent one's having a direct link. Something like minutes | notes | jabber logs, with each having the options of most recent and archive. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 27 Oct 2011, at 12:03, Richard Kulawiec wrote: I support this concept, although I would go much further and eliminate ALL face-to-face meetings. I absolutely wouldn't. Travel (for meetings) is expensive, time-consuming, energy-inefficient, and increasingly difficult. Your assertions above are all true, but that does not mean that people should be denied the opportunity to meet. Being mostly social animals, I believe it's essential that we *do* get to actually meet our IETF colleagues. Do not underestimate how important it is to actually establish a rapport with other people, and that can really only be achieved face-to-face. This is simple psychology. You simply can't get to know people and work with them effectively if all they are is faceless email accounts or a voice on a crowded conf call. I've met loads of people at my four years of IETF, and many of those I now consider friends. I know what their competences are, and I know which ones I trust and distrust. You just don't get that from remote participation. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
+1 Donald On Friday, October 28, 2011, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote: On 27 Oct 2011, at 12:03, Richard Kulawiec wrote: I support this concept, although I would go much further and eliminate ALL face-to-face meetings. I absolutely wouldn't. Travel (for meetings) is expensive, time-consuming, energy-inefficient, and increasingly difficult. Your assertions above are all true, but that does not mean that people should be denied the opportunity to meet. Being mostly social animals, I believe it's essential that we *do* get to actually meet our IETF colleagues. Do not underestimate how important it is to actually establish a rapport with other people, and that can really only be achieved face-to-face. This is simple psychology. You simply can't get to know people and work with them effectively if all they are is faceless email accounts or a voice on a crowded conf call. I've met loads of people at my four years of IETF, and many of those I now consider friends. I know what their competences are, and I know which ones I trust and distrust. You just don't get that from remote participation. Ray ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Hi Martin, At 22:42 26-10-2011, Martin Sustrik wrote: That can be either bad thing (too few experts, no good estimate about participation in the potential working group) or a good thing (random selection of IETF participants tests the sanity of the proposal). The second point is quite interesting. It may also be applicable for individual submissions. That random selection brings in participants from outside the area if it is an in-person meeting. For example: We have a discussion group of ~50 people that we would like to change to IETF WG, however, it's not likely more than 2-3 people would be able to get to the BoF in person. There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG. BTW, there is a difference between discussion group of ~50 people and ~50 subscribers. The former means broader participation and might provide a better view of commitment in comparison to room filled with people who only have to be around for an hour. There was a comment in this thread about without offending anyone. As an example, someone on another mailing list used the word rubbish in a reply [1]. In a face to face meeting, someone used the following words: one of the worst pieces of [removed] I ever read in my life [2]. Would the discussion group interacting only remotely be able to handle the social hurdles? Regards, -sm 1. I didn't read the exchange as negative. 2. The follow-up was positive. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net wrote: Mary; ** ** Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom to become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without hearing these comments? ** ** Ross [MB] No, I do not think the comments should be public. My point was that there is such a small percentage of the community that even provides input that it is really difficult to make really good decisions with that information. Each nomcom asks for detailed feedback, but it is rare to get feedback that provides concrete examples of why person x is the best choice for a position. That makes the job of the Nomcom extremely difficult and is one of the reasons why the decisions can be far from perfect. The primary problem with the current Nomcom model that can't be fixed by a process change is the lack of community input (Note: there is still time for folks to provide that input for this year's Nomcom!!!) So, I consider voting to be an easy way for folks to express an opinion without providing details - it at least could hopefully broaden community participation because it takes far less effort. [/MB] Regards, Mary. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Oct 27, 2011, at 2:54 AM, SM wrote: There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG. I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there actually is such a requirement. What there isn't a requirement for is a Bar BOF (and I would argue that there *is* a requirement that if a Bar BOF be held, it be held in a bar :-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Hi Fred, On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote: There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG. I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there actually is such a requirement. What there isn't a requirement for is a Bar BOF (and I would argue that there *is* a requirement that if a Bar BOF be held, it be held in a bar :-) Actually, there isn't, technically, a requirement for a BOF to form a WG. It is so often done that we think of a BOF as a necessary step, but the standards BCPs don't require one and, in fact, the PCP WG was recently formed without at BOF. Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/27/2011 4:03 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote: There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG. I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there actually is such a requirement. ... Actually, there isn't, technically, a requirement for a BOF to form a WG. It is so often done that we think of a BOF as a necessary step, but the standards BCPs don't require one and, in fact, the PCP WG was recently formed without at BOF. The IESG periodically imposes a higher bar to process than formal rules require. My impression is that it /is/ sometimes possible to form a wg without having a BOF but that the IESG treats the case with skepticism and hence it is strongly discouraged by the cognizant AD who is shepherding the nascent working group leaders. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote: I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there actually is such a requirement. Either you are incorrect, or the new MILE WG was chartered incorrectly. I'm hoping it is the former. What there isn't a requirement for is a Bar BOF (and I would argue that there *is* a requirement that if a Bar BOF be held, it be held in a bar :-) The MILE BarBoF in Quebec was certainly not in a bar. Further, the organizers went out of their way to encourage remote participation, and there was a presentation by phone of someone who had some interesting use scenarios that were put into the eventual charter. (Funny how this ties to the message that started this thread bak two or three levels of indirection.) --Paul Hoffman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Nomcom (was: Re: Requirement to go to meetings)
Subject changed, this is about to go off in a different direction. --On Thursday, October 27, 2011 08:38 -0500 Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote: ... [MB] No, I do not think the comments should be public. My point was that there is such a small percentage of the community that even provides input that it is really difficult to make really good decisions with that information. Each nomcom asks for detailed feedback, but it is rare to get feedback that provides concrete examples of why person x is the best choice for a position. That makes the job of the Nomcom extremely difficult and is one of the reasons why the decisions can be far from perfect. The primary problem with the current Nomcom model that can't be fixed by a process change is the lack of community input (Note: there is still time for folks to provide that input for this year's Nomcom!!!) So, I consider voting to be an easy way for folks to express an opinion without providing details - it at least could hopefully broaden community participation because it takes far less effort. Mary, Please understand that what I'm about to say is not a criticism of any hard-working Nomcom or its members, present or past. First, the problem with voting in our environment is ensuring fairness: if nothing else, it would be really easy for a company who felt like doing so to pack the proverbial ballot box. But, more important, when the Nomcom model was developed, I think the assumption of most of the community would be that the Nomcom would be populated mostly by really active participants in the IETF and that, in general, if a particular candidate wasn't personally known to at least several Nomcom members, that would be a really bad sign about that candidate. In that environment, extensive polls/ questionnaires were probably unnecessary; at worst, Nomcom's didn't need to depend on them as a primary source of information. Since then, several things have happened. The most important is that the community has gotten bigger and a number of trends have combined with size to make the assumption of first-person knowledge a lot less likely. The number of positions to be filled has also increased significantly: for example, I'm pretty sure there were fewer areas in 1996 and the typical area had one AD, rather than two being the norm for everyone by the IETF Chair. The Nomcom process has gotten longer (probably in part as a result) and serving on a Nomcom has become more burdensome. With most positions to be filled by the Nomcom, effectively having a rule that anyone interested in any of those positions should not volunteer to serve on the Nomcom may have some effect on participation. I'm sure you could add to that list. For that set of reasons, while I don't think voting is the answer unless we decide to change our membership model so that we can identify close affiliates and vote by organization and/or restrict the ability of any organization or group of organizations to capture the process --and, for the record, I don't favor trying that -- I do think some fundamental rethinking of the Nomcom model may be important and important soon. In the interim, if the Nomcom wants more feedback, I suggest that some tuning (not requiring major reforms) may be in order to actually make giving that input easier. Let me give four examples, but they are only examples. There may be others that would be even more useful to think about. (1) There is an incumbent bias built into the system because Nomcoms (using a reasonable reading of the criteria in various BCPs), appear to believe that their job is to return an incumbent who is willing to serve again unless a candidate is available who would be clearly superior. Especially for the IESG, unless the incumbent has screwed up in a serious way, that bar will normally be impossibly high because a sitting AD is a known quantity and almost any alternate candidate is a risk. Spencer Dawkins and I made a proposal a couple of years ago for the Nomcom to review the incumbents who were willing to serve again separately, make decisions about them, and only then start considering others. The proposal, at least in the last version posted (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-nomcom-incumbents-first/) never got an real traction. The proposal had some disadvantages, some of which might have been fixed with more work, and others of which were just tradeoffs to be considered. But one clear effect would have been to drastically reduce the number of positions for which the community is asked to comment on a list of candidates. (2) Independent of that particular suggestion, the number of slots on which people are now being asked to comment, and, in some cases, the number of people who are listed for each slot, is just daunting. Ask someone to comment on two or three candidates for one position (or even a few positions) and you will probably get a lot of input, especially if the people you ask
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Sounds like I made an error... On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote: I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there actually is such a requirement. Either you are incorrect, or the new MILE WG was chartered incorrectly. I'm hoping it is the former. What there isn't a requirement for is a Bar BOF (and I would argue that there *is* a requirement that if a Bar BOF be held, it be held in a bar :-) The MILE BarBoF in Quebec was certainly not in a bar. Further, the organizers went out of their way to encourage remote participation, and there was a presentation by phone of someone who had some interesting use scenarios that were put into the eventual charter. (Funny how this ties to the message that started this thread bak two or three levels of indirection.) --Paul Hoffman ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirement to go to meetings
I very much agree that community input is required for nomcom to make good choices. There is no way that any one nomcom member could possibly know every candidate for every position. And yes, right now is the time to give input. Thanks, Ross From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:39 AM To: Ross Callon Cc: Peter Saint-Andre; John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.netmailto:rcal...@juniper.net wrote: Mary; Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom to become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without hearing these comments? Ross [MB] No, I do not think the comments should be public. My point was that there is such a small percentage of the community that even provides input that it is really difficult to make really good decisions with that information. Each nomcom asks for detailed feedback, but it is rare to get feedback that provides concrete examples of why person x is the best choice for a position. That makes the job of the Nomcom extremely difficult and is one of the reasons why the decisions can be far from perfect. The primary problem with the current Nomcom model that can't be fixed by a process change is the lack of community input (Note: there is still time for folks to provide that input for this year's Nomcom!!!) So, I consider voting to be an easy way for folks to express an opinion without providing details - it at least could hopefully broaden community participation because it takes far less effort. [/MB] Regards, Mary. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
--On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:17 -0400 Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of going back to 4 meetings a year than going to 2... That is why I didn't suggest going to 2 but dropping the f2f count to two _and_ insisting that WGs hold interim virtual meetings. Those meetings would, given competent management, impose deadlines too. And, if you read my (admitted sketchy) suggestion, you would note that it essentially forces each WG into four meetings a year if it wants to meet f2f twice. So, if you want to look at it that way, for WGs, it is a proposal to change three f2f meetings a year to four meetings a year, but with only two of them f2f. As others have pointed out, that doesn't solve the water cooler problem. It would probably require some rethinking of how we handle BOFs, WG creation, and other tasks. But the question, IMO, is whether we really need three f2f full meetings a year to manage those things or whether we could get clever enough to deal with only two of them. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 05:48:07PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: Eliminate one of the face to face meetings entirely -- go to two a year and either hold the 4 3/4 day schedule or, better cut it back to four. [snip] I support this concept, although I would go much further and eliminate ALL face-to-face meetings. Travel (for meetings) is expensive, time-consuming, energy-inefficient, and increasingly difficult. As a group that possesses significant 'net expertise, we should have long since figured out how to organize our processes so that it's not necessary, thereby removing significant barriers to participation and saving everyone's time and money. Yes, that means not just working through the technology issues, but the procedural ones as well -- and that latter may be difficult than the former. But I think it's feasible, and I think we should commit to it, with a goal of eliminating all meetings by 2014. ---rsk ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Sun Oct 23 17:19:23 2011, Melinda Shore wrote: On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is working group chairs, I'd add the cultural problem that no matter how many RFCs I author, I shall forever be barred from taking part in (for example) NomCom unless I show up to meetings in person. While we instill a requirement to attend meetings to be a real IETF participant, we'll require people to attend meetings to do real participation. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/25/11 3:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote: the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for us to go to. ;-) I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper to attend. One is the issue of air fare and hotel cost; these have been brought up before. 25 years ago, all meetings were in the US, as were most of the participants. People came from Europe and Australia at significantly greater cost, but for the average attendee, putting all meetings in the US reduced meeting cost. It's now 25 years later, and that logic doesn't remotely start to work. ... Ok, Fred, let me enter one suggestion into this discussion that would actually cut total costs, recognize and take advantage of the observation that an increasing number of WGs are holding virtual interim meetings, and reduce pressures on meeting time conflicts and trying to get everything done in 4 3/4 days. Eliminate one of the face to face meetings entirely -- go to two a year and either hold the 4 3/4 day schedule or, better cut it back to four. Reducing the number of meetings a year from three to two makes sense. Naturally, we'd need to work through the implications (e.g., the NomCom schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). Plus, it's a natural complement to having reduced the number of maturity levels from three to two. ;-) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of going back to 4 meetings a year than going to 2... Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: On 10/25/11 3:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote: the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for us to go to. ;-) I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper to attend. One is the issue of air fare and hotel cost; these have been brought up before. 25 years ago, all meetings were in the US, as were most of the participants. People came from Europe and Australia at significantly greater cost, but for the average attendee, putting all meetings in the US reduced meeting cost. It's now 25 years later, and that logic doesn't remotely start to work. ... Ok, Fred, let me enter one suggestion into this discussion that would actually cut total costs, recognize and take advantage of the observation that an increasing number of WGs are holding virtual interim meetings, and reduce pressures on meeting time conflicts and trying to get everything done in 4 3/4 days. Eliminate one of the face to face meetings entirely -- go to two a year and either hold the 4 3/4 day schedule or, better cut it back to four. Reducing the number of meetings a year from three to two makes sense. Naturally, we'd need to work through the implications (e.g., the NomCom schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). Plus, it's a natural complement to having reduced the number of maturity levels from three to two. ;-) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/26/11 10:17 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of going back to 4 meetings a year than going to 2... Use virtual interim meetings (etc.) as a forcing function. There's more than one way to set a deadline. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirement to go to meetings
Hi, I don't have an opinion regarding the number of f2f meetings. But, as we've discussed before, I think we could make more out of the summer meetings (considering any e-mail etc activities taking place before and after them) by moving them away from the main summer vacation period. So, no meetings in july and august. Regards, Christer From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre [stpe...@stpeter.im] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:38 PM To: John C Klensin Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings On 10/25/11 3:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote: the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for us to go to. ;-) I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper to attend. One is the issue of air fare and hotel cost; these have been brought up before. 25 years ago, all meetings were in the US, as were most of the participants. People came from Europe and Australia at significantly greater cost, but for the average attendee, putting all meetings in the US reduced meeting cost. It's now 25 years later, and that logic doesn't remotely start to work. ... Ok, Fred, let me enter one suggestion into this discussion that would actually cut total costs, recognize and take advantage of the observation that an increasing number of WGs are holding virtual interim meetings, and reduce pressures on meeting time conflicts and trying to get everything done in 4 3/4 days. Eliminate one of the face to face meetings entirely -- go to two a year and either hold the 4 3/4 day schedule or, better cut it back to four. Reducing the number of meetings a year from three to two makes sense. Naturally, we'd need to work through the implications (e.g., the NomCom schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). Plus, it's a natural complement to having reduced the number of maturity levels from three to two. ;-) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
- Original Message - From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:06 PM t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote: From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net --On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com wrote: ... I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can take days, weeks, or even months to answer something that's holding up a working group. But _why_ is that something holding up a working group? Because they are the one holding the token, usually the editorship of the I-D, and everyone else must wait for a revised version, for a response to LC comments etc. This is _not_ a good way to run a mailing-list! You surprise me; I would say that many if not most of the IETF WG lists I track run along those lines, with bursts of activity starting about the time the cutoff for I-D submission is announced, and finishing soon after the I-D submission window re-opens. In between, we wait; sometimes it is for the chair, but more often for the document 'editor' (and yes, I know that ADs are a precious and scarce resource whose intervention should not be called on). A technical fix would be to make it easier to change editor. I strongly believe that the IETF process, of change control of a WG I-D being vested in the WG, is absolutely right and it goes wrong when either the creator of the individual submission goes on regarding it as their own property, making changes without waiting for list consensus on changes, or, more often, when they do not make changes, in a timely manner, for which there is a consensus. If the chair could say, without offending anyone, please incorporate these changes within nn days, with the option, when that does not happen, to get someone else to make them instead, then documents would come sooner and, IMO, be of a higher quality. Tom Petch Harking back to Melinda's comment, this is where chairmanship comes in; the good chairs will chivy, poke and prod so that the hold-ups are minimised... The WGC cannot always manage this alone... And sometimes WG chairs should prod ADs, sometimes vice versa. ADs don't have as much time available for this as you think... What is difficult in our structure is for those without a formal role to insert a chivy without causing offence; A chivy, almost by definition, is bound to cause offense. But a posted question, expecting an answer from a WGC, can be effective. this is where face-to-face, with its vastly richer communication channel, is superior. True, but three times a year isn't often enough. :^( -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: (e.g., the NomCom schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). no problem. We stop having the nomcom. (he ducks) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote: On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: (e.g., the NomCom schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). no problem. We stop having the nomcom. Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the members vote. Easy. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote: From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote: From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net But _why_ is that something holding up a working group? Because they are the one holding the token, usually the editorship of the I-D, and everyone else must wait for a revised version, for a response to LC comments etc. This is _not_ a good way to run a mailing-list! You surprise me; I would say that many if not most of the IETF WG lists I track run along those lines, with bursts of activity starting about the time the cutoff for I-D submission is announced, and finishing soon after the I-D submission window re-opens. I won't dispute your data... In between, we wait; sometimes it is for the chair, but more often for the document 'editor' Yes, I see this a lot. :^( Sometimes it's worse: the document 'editor' doesn't meet the cutoff and we wait for the next cutoff. (and yes, I know that ADs are a precious and scarce resource whose intervention should not be called on). Nonetheless they _do_ tackle such situations -- often it's recorded in the Narrative Minutes without naming names... A technical fix would be to make it easier to change editor. Actually it's quite easy: if both WGCs agree, editors can be changed for any reason at all, or even no reason in particular. The problem is, the new editors usually suffer the same symptoms. I strongly believe that the IETF process, of change control of a WG I-D being vested in the WG, is absolutely right +1 and it goes wrong when either the creator of the individual submission goes on regarding it as their own property, making changes without waiting for list consensus on changes, Hmm... I see that a lot, too... It's not always bad, but it does tend to slow the process. or, more often, when they do not make changes, in a timely manner, for which there is a consensus. I don't see as much of that -- of course most WGCs don't call consensus quickly enough, in which case it's not exactly the document editor's fault. IMHO, the happiest situations are where the document editor responds to (almost) every suggestion, usually suggesting text for how to clarify the point raised. Then the WGC calls consensus when the comments die down. Alas, few WGCs choose document editors that will do this... If the chair could say, without offending anyone, please incorporate these changes within nn days, with the option, when that does not happen, to get someone else to make them instead, then documents would come sooner and, IMO, be of a higher quality. There ain't no such thing as without offending anyone. I suspect, however, that WGCs _could_ say something like that privately and solicit what amounts to a resignation of the document editor in question. The problem, IMHO, is that most WGCs have no idea how to find someone to replace the document editor in question. My way would be to announce the resignation; then say, If nobody volunteers to become document editor, we'll drop this from our milestone list. WGCs, IMHO, take too many responsibilities on themselves; and burnout too often follows. :^( -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote: On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote: On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: (e.g., the NomCom schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). no problem. We stop having the nomcom. Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the members vote. Easy. [MB] You don't need a membership structure to have voting - you just allow anyone that has attended the requisite number of meetings per the Nomcom process to vote - i.e., if you are qualified to be a voting member of the Nomcom, you can vote.I personally believe that voting would be better than the current model. As it is, a very small percentage of the participants actually contribute to the process in the form of nominating or providing feedback: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00 (section 6.2) So, making it easier to provide input in the form of a vote might actually get more folks caring about who the leaders are.It would also save a tremendous amount of work on the part of the folks that serve on the Nomcom. [/MB] [Also, ducking] Mary. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirement to go to meetings
Mary; Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom to become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without hearing these comments? Ross From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:52 PM To: Peter Saint-Andre Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.immailto:stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote: On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: (e.g., the NomCom schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). no problem. We stop having the nomcom. Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the members vote. Easy. [MB] You don't need a membership structure to have voting - you just allow anyone that has attended the requisite number of meetings per the Nomcom process to vote - i.e., if you are qualified to be a voting member of the Nomcom, you can vote.I personally believe that voting would be better than the current model. As it is, a very small percentage of the participants actually contribute to the process in the form of nominating or providing feedback: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00 (section 6.2) So, making it easier to provide input in the form of a vote might actually get more folks caring about who the leaders are.It would also save a tremendous amount of work on the part of the folks that serve on the Nomcom. [/MB] [Also, ducking] Mary. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.orgmailto:Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/27/2011 5:00 AM, Ross Callon wrote: Mary; Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom to become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without hearing these comments? The general implication of Ross's question comes from the entirely predictable fact that most folk in the IETF are not all that involved with more than a narrow range of other folk and do not know much about IETF management, or even that much about process. Nomcom creates a small group of folk who spend a great deal of time getting much, much more familiar with people, tasks, requirements and process. It does this at massive effort cost to those doing the actual work, of course, and it certainly would be nice to find ways to reduce that work. (My own preference continues to be to ensure that a portion of Nomcom voting members has direct experience doing IETF management tasks, producing RFCs and equivalent, deeper involvement in the IETF; that is, ensuring that the voting members are guaranteed a base level of knowledge about the IETF.) I'm hard-pressed to see how an IETF-wide voting mechanism will produce better results than the current Nomcom process. It would be a simpler, less stressful process, but it would also be less informed. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/24/2011 07:16 PM, SM wrote: If you do not go to meetings, it's unlikely that you will be able to follow the BoF you are interested in. There may be times when decisions are taken during a meeting. It is not worth the nit-picking if the outcome won't change. As BoFs are held in early stages of development, there's unlikely to be much funding for it, no budgets approved yet etc. So, at the BoF there'll be couple of experts who managed to get the funding and random selection of IETF folks who drop in just because they happen to be around. That can be either bad thing (too few experts, no good estimate about participation in the potential working group) or a good thing (random selection of IETF participants tests the sanity of the proposal). In the former case it would be better to hold BoFs via conference calls or similar means. In the latter case the existing model works OK. For example: We have a discussion group of ~50 people that we would like to change to IETF WG, however, it's not likely more than 2-3 people would be able to get to the BoF in person. Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
- Original Message - From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 6:19 PM Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is working group chairs, both for using meetings as deadline anchors and for doing a really crappy job managing remote participation during meetings (and thereby increasing the need to be there in person). A few do an outstanding job, a few don't even try, and most are somewhere in the middle. It may be worth doing a wg chairs training session on this topic during an upcoming meeting. Yup, and not just managing remote participation. The mailing list work of the IETF consists, for many WGs, of three short bursts of activity each year, interspersed with periods of hibernation (or aestivation). Perhaps we should schedule six meetings each year; no need to attend them, it would just create six bursts of activity each year so we would get twice as much done, or get the same amount done in half the time. When W S Gilbert's song, I've got a little list, they'd none of them be missed is updated in modern performances, I would like to add to the list WG chairs who go to sleep between meetings:-) Tom Petch Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
- Original Message - From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net To: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:46 PM John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com wrote: ... I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can take days, weeks, or even months to answer something that's holding up a working group. But _why_ is that something holding up a working group? Because they are the one holding the token, usually the editorship of the I-D, and everyone else must wait for a revised version, for a response to LC comments etc. Harking back to Melinda's comment, this is where chairmanship comes in; the good chairs will chivy, poke and prod so that the hold-ups are minimised, or will kick off something else in the meantime. And sometimes WG chairs should prod ADs, sometimes vice versa. What is difficult in our structure is for those without a formal role to insert a chivy without causing offence; this is where face-to-face, with its vastly richer communication channel, is superior. Tom Petch If you're sitting on a mailing list and someone asks you to provide a document review by some date and you say nothing, there's no indication of whether or not you even got the request. If you're sitting in a meeting room and someone asks you to provide a document review by some date, that person is likely to get an answer from you right away. But is that right-away answer necessarily useful? In short: Meetings don't stall, but lists do. I have seen many meeting stall. :^( Fortunately, they end. ;^) We're stuck with human nature here, and human nature tends to put things off until the last minute. Meetings work better because they start and end at known times. Murray, fwiw, your analysis doesn't require f2f meetings. If it could be done, well-conducted virtual/remote meetings would work as well because they, too involve fixed cutoffs, real-time responses, and opportunity to confront those who may not be responding, etc. I bring to your attention an existence proof: the IESG. For years they've been doing the vast bulk of entirely-too-much work over telechats. They _have_ fixed cutoffs, real-time responses, and bi-weekly opportunities to confront those who may not be responding. Et cetera... IMHO, we shouldn't dwell on why face-to-face meetings work better: we should admit they really don't work well enough. I follow far too many (heck, one would be too many!) WGs where the only cutoff is the I-D submission deadline before IETF week. We're all seeing the ritual announcement in WG lists right now: If you'd like to present something, tell us! WG chairs put so much effort into trying to make IETF-week meetings work well that you really can't blame them for relaxing a bit after IETF week completes. But too often, the momentum is lost: WGCs have assigned responsibilities to folks who did show up; and they too are exhausted by the end of IETF week. Finally, they are roused by the I-D submission deadline for the next IETF week. :^( I follow other WGs where there are Interim Meetings. The result is much happier -- quite possibly _mostly_ because of the added cutoff. Admittedly, the face-to-face Interims work better than virtual Interims; but I'm not convinced that would still be the case if instead of one face-to-face we had three or more virtual Interims. There is a definite learning-curve working with conferencing software, but once you've climbed this it works well enough. And the additional cutoffs, IMHO, accomplish almost as much as the meetings themselves! ;^) My advice is to put more effort into formal scheduling of Interim meetings (probably mostly virtual Interims). Currently these are treated as exceptional events needing AD approval: while I agree AD-approval probably belongs there, I'd wish we could treat them as normal events. -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote: From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net --On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com wrote: ... I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can take days, weeks, or even months to answer something that's holding up a working group. But _why_ is that something holding up a working group? Because they are the one holding the token, usually the editorship of the I-D, and everyone else must wait for a revised version, for a response to LC comments etc. This is _not_ a good way to run a mailing-list! Harking back to Melinda's comment, this is where chairmanship comes in; the good chairs will chivy, poke and prod so that the hold-ups are minimised... The WGC cannot always manage this alone... And sometimes WG chairs should prod ADs, sometimes vice versa. ADs don't have as much time available for this as you think... What is difficult in our structure is for those without a formal role to insert a chivy without causing offence; A chivy, almost by definition, is bound to cause offense. But a posted question, expecting an answer from a WGC, can be effective. this is where face-to-face, with its vastly richer communication channel, is superior. True, but three times a year isn't often enough. :^( -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote: On 10/24/2011 10:17 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: The biggest challenge is however that we are seeing a massive increase in Bar-BOFs... it's one thing if 5 people get together to figure out a problem statement, it's another when it's announced... Yes! As a process matter I'd be happy to see Bar BOFs go away as a supported activity. I'm unclear on why writing up a problem statement and trying to gin up discussion on a mailing list is no longer sufficient, but I think it's pretty clearly a symptom of process drift. I tend to think the whole clouds/data center mishegas would be going a lot better if they'd followed the conventional process and started with a problem definition (and scoping, for Pete's sake: *scoping*) rather than giving a bunch of non-technical presentations at so-called Bar BOFs, trying to develop interest. I could be wrong but my sense is that the semi-recognized partly-supported somewhat-organized insufficiently-coherent inching-towards-acceptance Bar BOF structure provides a little too much organizational support for ideas that are less than fully-formed. And yeah, since remote meeting tools aren't provided (audio, in particular) people do need to attend in person if they want to participate in one of those things. Melinda Well, I think this actually illustrates why we do need to go to meetings in-person. Typically, unless one has read the relevant drafts and studied the issues ahead of time, it's hard to go to a meeting and have an in-depth understanding from 5-10 minuets of presentation. So, many of us go to meetings to listen and to participate on the topics we actually know and care. At the same time, we often get surprised by the new ideas either from the presentations or the discussion on the mic. This is the time for hallway chat. Sometime, we simply go and bounce new ideas with others. I think that meeting people and having face-to-face discussion have been one of the key motivations for many of us going to IETF in the first place. The location of the meeting is actually secondary in comparison. So, yes, remote conferencing tool is needed, better meeting notes would be useful, but the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for us to go to. ;-) Regards, Ping __**_ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietfhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote: the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for us to go to. ;-) I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper to attend. One is the issue of air fare and hotel cost; these have been brought up before. 25 years ago, all meetings were in the US, as were most of the participants. People came from Europe and Australia at significantly greater cost, but for the average attendee, putting all meetings in the US reduced meeting cost. It's now 25 years later, and that logic doesn't remotely start to work. From my perspective, the best we can do in that regard is place meetings somewhere that some of our participants come from and is less expensive than other choices for remote attendees - if we place the meeting far from everyone, it will cost more for the average attendee than if we at least put it near *someone* that is likely to attend. Here's a thought for you. Folks have periodically proposed that all meetings happen at the large international airports, the hubs in the transportation system. That reduces transportation costs by putting the meeting somewhere that everyone can relatively-easily get to. What hotels do you find in those airports, what do they cost, and what do they offer? We could, for example, put the next IETF at Frankfurt Am Mein, and have everyone stay in the Sheraton Frankfurt - or not. We could all go to Narita, and try to hold a meeting in the $40 hotels near it - or not. It turns out that if you're trying to reduce cost, you go somewhere that isn't the hub of the transport network. That gives you a lot more options, and often options that you might actually prefer. Something that *can* help there is to not require the hotel to be in/by the conference center. The one roof rule tends to mean that we select many-star hotels. Tell us that we can put the people in one place and the meeting somewhere else, and people can choose less-star hotels if they like. Another issue relates to the conference center itself. We routinely have nine breakout sessions going at once, hold receptions, deliver coffee and cookies, and have meetings with 1000 people in a room. That means that we look for conference centers that can host those meetings. 25 years ago, the usual solution was for the host to donate the use of their own conference facilities (my wife still mentions the fact that we had a meeting at the University of Hawaii Honolulu and I spent an entire week in Hawaii indoors); when we became larger than 500 people and needed more than a handful of rooms at once, that got hard. Practical solutions that either reduce the room requirements or make for ways they can be donated might help. Go to the beach? Oh, by the way, the conference cost is a deal, a horse-trade. If we meet in a conference center separate from hotel space, we can't offer the place room nights as a trade-off against meeting space, which means that both costs tend to go up. I think something helpful to reduce the attendance fee would be to find a way to provide corporate sponsors to underwrite the cost. An issue we routinely have is that corporate sponsors want to be selling something, and the engineers that make a competitor's product aren't usually potential customers. Also, the companies that are likely to do so tend to have a number of attendees, and can do the math - sponsorships come out of a single budget, while attendance fees come out of departmental budgets, but the sum is the same. The companies that routinely help out one way or another also tend to feel that it's someone else's turn to be generous. Ideas there would be helpful. So, here's something you can do that would actually help. Tell us how to reduce not the price of cookies or the price of the hotel room, but the price of the entire meeting as viewed by the average attendee. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
--On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote: the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for us to go to. ;-) I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a number of problems that need to be solved to make them cheaper to attend. One is the issue of air fare and hotel cost; these have been brought up before. 25 years ago, all meetings were in the US, as were most of the participants. People came from Europe and Australia at significantly greater cost, but for the average attendee, putting all meetings in the US reduced meeting cost. It's now 25 years later, and that logic doesn't remotely start to work. ... Ok, Fred, let me enter one suggestion into this discussion that would actually cut total costs, recognize and take advantage of the observation that an increasing number of WGs are holding virtual interim meetings, and reduce pressures on meeting time conflicts and trying to get everything done in 4 3/4 days. Eliminate one of the face to face meetings entirely -- go to two a year and either hold the 4 3/4 day schedule or, better cut it back to four. Don't let any WG meet at those f2f meetings unless it can demonstrate to the relevant AD that significant progress has been made, via virtual interim meetings and posted drafts, during the previous six months. No interim meetings, no drafts between full IETF meetings equals no meeting time (and a lot of risk of being shut down as useless). This wouldn't come for nothing. We'd have to get much more serious about interim meetings and adequate documentation and tracking. We've have to rethink our financial model (at least the part ISOC doesn't cover) so that it didn't depend almost entirely on getting the maximum number of people to travel to f2f meetings three times a year. We'd have to make a real commitment to remote participation between full meetings -- possibly covered by the requirements and tools the RFP contemplates, possibly not. ADs would have to think very carefully about what they need to watch and how... and about adjusting the roles of WG Chairs they couldn't trust to do most things without anyone looking over their shoulders. Nomcom schedules and many other things that depend on three full, f2f, meetings a year would need to be reevaluated. It is probably more change to our culture and how we do things than anyone is actually willing to consider. But the other way to read your note --with which I almost entirely agree-- is that, if one wants to see real savings, one has to change the equation, not just diddle around with tuning some of the parameters. I continue to think we could do better with location and cost tradeoffs, but probably not hugely better. Simply reducing the number of times per year we need to have large numbers of participants fly long distances, put them into hotels and conference centers, etc., actually changes the equation. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
get real here. we want global participation. the world is big and the world is round. you gonna pay for it with jet lag, con calls at weird hours, or both. Or none ... there is simple solution like meeting recording, but for some reason IETF proceedings are very crappy in linking wg meetings to their recordings (if at all available). Example: Quebec City ISIS WG meeting http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/isis.html 3 drafts presented ... looking at link to audio there is zoo of mp3 without even containing the name of wg in their filename: http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf81/ Can one perhaps take an action to improve this starting Taipei ? Best, R. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/23/11 23:45 , Robert Raszuk wrote: get real here. we want global participation. the world is big and the world is round. you gonna pay for it with jet lag, con calls at weird hours, or both. Or none ... there is simple solution like meeting recording, but for some reason IETF proceedings are very crappy in linking wg meetings to their recordings (if at all available). Example: Quebec City ISIS WG meeting http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/81/isis.html 3 drafts presented ... looking at link to audio there is zoo of mp3 without even containing the name of wg in their filename: http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf81/ Can one perhaps take an action to improve this starting Taipei ? the ietf 81 recordings have a substantially more normalized name format than previously for which you can thank the folks from verilan for the tool development. Best, R. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirement to go to meetings
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Petit-Huguenin Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 9:51 AM To: Melinda Shore Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is working group chairs, both for using meetings as deadline anchors and for doing a really crappy job managing remote participation during meetings (and thereby increasing the need to be there in person). A few do an outstanding job, a few don't even try, and most are somewhere in the middle. It may be worth doing a wg chairs training session on this topic during an upcoming meeting. +1 Ditto. I really like that idea. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher ... I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to relay comments from the chatroom to the mic. Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber scribing? I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful for participants who are not native English speakers. If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher ... I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to relay comments from the chatroom to the mic. Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber scribing? I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful for participants who are not native English speakers. If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?) FWIW, I've found Jabber scribes supplementing the audio stream useful because the audio stream alone isn't always sufficient to hear what's going on, or to know who's speaking. /K ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: --On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com wrote: ... I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can take days, weeks, or even months to answer something that's holding up a working group. But _why_ is that something holding up a working group? If you're sitting on a mailing list and someone asks you to provide a document review by some date and you say nothing, there's no indication of whether or not you even got the request. If you're sitting in a meeting room and someone asks you to provide a document review by some date, that person is likely to get an answer from you right away. But is that right-away answer necessarily useful? In short: Meetings don't stall, but lists do. I have seen many meeting stall. :^( Fortunately, they end. ;^) We're stuck with human nature here, and human nature tends to put things off until the last minute. Meetings work better because they start and end at known times. Murray, fwiw, your analysis doesn't require f2f meetings. If it could be done, well-conducted virtual/remote meetings would work as well because they, too involve fixed cutoffs, real-time responses, and opportunity to confront those who may not be responding, etc. I bring to your attention an existence proof: the IESG. For years they've been doing the vast bulk of entirely-too-much work over telechats. They _have_ fixed cutoffs, real-time responses, and bi-weekly opportunities to confront those who may not be responding. Et cetera... IMHO, we shouldn't dwell on why face-to-face meetings work better: we should admit they really don't work well enough. I follow far too many (heck, one would be too many!) WGs where the only cutoff is the I-D submission deadline before IETF week. We're all seeing the ritual announcement in WG lists right now: If you'd like to present something, tell us! WG chairs put so much effort into trying to make IETF-week meetings work well that you really can't blame them for relaxing a bit after IETF week completes. But too often, the momentum is lost: WGCs have assigned responsibilities to folks who did show up; and they too are exhausted by the end of IETF week. Finally, they are roused by the I-D submission deadline for the next IETF week. :^( I follow other WGs where there are Interim Meetings. The result is much happier -- quite possibly _mostly_ because of the added cutoff. Admittedly, the face-to-face Interims work better than virtual Interims; but I'm not convinced that would still be the case if instead of one face-to-face we had three or more virtual Interims. There is a definite learning-curve working with conferencing software, but once you've climbed this it works well enough. And the additional cutoffs, IMHO, accomplish almost as much as the meetings themselves! ;^) My advice is to put more effort into formal scheduling of Interim meetings (probably mostly virtual Interims). Currently these are treated as exceptional events needing AD approval: while I agree AD-approval probably belongs there, I'd wish we could treat them as normal events. -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher ... I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to relay comments from the chatroom to the mic. Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber scribing? I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful for participants who are not native English speakers. That is how I use it. In that interpretation, there only needs to be one scribe, with is an advantage. Another BIG advantage of this is that if I write (as a jabber scribe) something like Audience member ? : this proposal conflicts with RFC mumble I am likely to get a rapid response providing what mumble means and who the speaker is. After the fact, this sort of thing is much harder to reconstruct. A disadvantage is that it typically overwhelms normal discussion on the jabber channel. I have suggested that each session get _2_ jabber channels, one for chat, one for scribing, but so far this has not gotten any support. Regards Marshall If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net __**_ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietfhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Oct 24, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher ... I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to relay comments from the chatroom to the mic. Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber scribing? I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful for participants who are not native English speakers. If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?) The problem with Jabber is that it has become an apparently replacement for audio/video conversation/QA at WG meetings for remote participants. I find the jabber feed to be relatively useless at meetings for this purpose as the chairs do not always notice questions. Using something like WebEx is far more useful, and I'd suggest making it mandatory for all WG meetings in the near future to better facilitate remote participants. --Tom d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.comwrote: On Oct 24, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher ... I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to relay comments from the chatroom to the mic. Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber scribing? I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful for participants who are not native English speakers. If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?) The problem with Jabber is that it has become an apparently replacement for audio/video conversation/QA at WG meetings for remote participants. I find the jabber feed to be relatively useless at meetings for this purpose as the chairs do not always notice questions. Using something like WebEx is far more useful, and I'd suggest making it mandatory for all WG meetings in the near future to better facilitate remote participants. As jabber scribe, I view part of my responsibility as relaying questions asked on jabber (if no one else is doing so). For groups that have secretaries, I suggest that that be part of the secretary's responsibilities. Regards Marshall --Tom d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/24/11 05:49 , Thomas Nadeau wrote: On Oct 24, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher ... I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to relay comments from the chatroom to the mic. Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber scribing? I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful for participants who are not native English speakers. If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?) The problem with Jabber is that it has become an apparently replacement for audio/video conversation/QA at WG meetings for remote participants. I find the jabber feed to be relatively useless at meetings for this purpose as the chairs do not always notice questions. Using something like WebEx is far more useful, and I'd suggest making it mandatory for all WG meetings in the near future to better facilitate remote participants. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vmeet/current/msg00232.html --Tom d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirement to go to meetings
Cheaper, yes. Easier? Sure, a 5-hour flight to Paris sure beats a 12-hour flight to New York plus a 4 hour flight to Minneapolis, but you end up in Paris, and if the conference hotel is too expensive for your corporate budget (it usually is for mine), you have to go really far away to find a hotel that fits the budget and is not a fleabag. OTOH any city in the US except the really huge ones (NY or LA) you can find perfectly good hotels that feature breakfast, Internet and a spacious room for way lower than the Hilton rates, and not at all far from the conference. In Anaheim I found a hotel at half price at 10 minutes walk time from the Hilton. And maybe it's just me, but with US hotels, it's far easier to tell the fleabags from the acceptable hotels than in Europe. Asia is even tougher. Flying to Taipei will take me to Paris and Hong Kong. And I have no idea how to tell a good hotel from a bad one. I'll have to trust the travel agent. ...or TripAdvisor. People from other parts of the world probably have the same problem when travelling to US, but with a little bit of research effort I think it's pretty easy to get a picture of the hotel, how far it is from the meeting etc. Regards, Christer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/24/2011 2:49 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote: I find the jabber feed to be relatively useless at meetings for this purpose as the chairs do not always notice questions. This goes back to the question of methodology for chairing group activities, whether f2f or on a mailing list. In special cases, a group does not need to be (actively) managed (e.g., by a chair) but normally it does. The rest of the time, active management is essential, which then leads to the question of methodology. A small, well-behaved, knowledgeable group, working on a reasonably well-understood topic, typically needs minimal management. The IETF does sometimes have such a group, but not often. Large, well-behaved groups that are motivated to make progress typically need only basic, textbook process management methods. Less well-behaved groups needs stricter management. Predictably this is where we tend to see large differences among chair skillsets. (The challenge is both being willing to be strict, and the particular methods used for strictness.) What is being layed on top of this range, here, is the multi-media challenge of remote/local participation. As noted, that's a matter of attention to the fact of this challenge and adjusting. Simplistically, my own observation is that when chairs put energy into worrying about including remote participants -- unless the room is cantankerous -- things go rather better for the remote folk. When the chairs do no pay ongoing attention to the inclusion of remote folk, then the remote folk lose. Tools might help this, but it won't fix it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes: I find the jabber feed to be relatively useless at meetings for this purpose as the chairs do not always notice questions. Dave This goes back to the question of methodology for chairing group activities, Dave whether f2f or on a mailing list. Dave In special cases, a group does not need to be (actively) managed (e.g., by a Dave chair) but normally it does. The rest of the time, active management is Dave essential, which then leads to the question of methodology. Dave A small, well-behaved, knowledgeable group, working on a reasonably Dave well-understood topic, typically needs minimal management. The IETF does Dave sometimes have such a group, but not often. Dave Large, well-behaved groups that are motivated to make progress typically need Dave only basic, textbook process management methods. Dave Less well-behaved groups needs stricter management. Predictably this is Dave where we tend to see large differences among chair skillsets. (The challenge Dave is both being willing to be strict, and the particular methods used for Dave strictness.) Dave What is being layed on top of this range, here, is the multi-media challenge Dave of remote/local participation. As noted, that's a matter of attention to the Dave fact of this challenge and adjusting. Dave Simplistically, my own observation is that when chairs put energy into Dave worrying about including remote participants -- unless the room is Dave cantankerous -- things go rather better for the remote folk. When the chairs Dave do no pay ongoing attention to the inclusion of remote folk, then the remote Dave folk lose. My belief is that a properly done (researched and taught, with some technology to help reinforce the social contract) remote participation process will in fact *help* weaker chairs deal with less well-behaved groups. I'm claiming that not only do remote folks benefit, but local folks benefit too! -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/24/11 6:44 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher ... I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to relay comments from the chatroom to the mic. Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber scribing? I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful for participants who are not native English speakers. If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?) FWIW, I've found Jabber scribes supplementing the audio stream useful because the audio stream alone isn't always sufficient to hear what's going on, or to know who's speaking. Problem is, it's a lot of work to scribe the audio, and it's not easy to find volunteers for that task. I do think it's helpful for someone to at least relay the names of those who step up to the mic, but that could be done with those little RFID badges we experimented with a few times. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
For what it's worth, I've been a repeat-offender note-taker for a bunch of groups at the IETF, and was doing that when we mass-created all the jabber.ietf.org rooms. It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had the chance to correct things I wasn't getting right, but the volume of my notes swamped the ability of anyone else to use the jabber room for discussion, asking questions, raising hands ... This was true for working group meetings, virtual interim meetings, the IESG telechats, and plenaries (so, across the board). There were several IETFs where there were two jabber rooms (one for sessions I was note-taking for, and one for other uses) for RAI working groups I was note-taking for, but that happened two or three years ago, and I haven't seen any meetings with two jabber rooms lately. Spencer - Original Message - From: Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im To: ke...@kismith.co.uk Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings On 10/24/11 6:44 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher ... I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to relay comments from the chatroom to the mic. Basic question: what has been the claimed purpose for doing jabber scribing? I thought it was a means of produce raw minutes. A side -- and sometimes extremely valuable -- benefit is as a relatively real-time alternative source of information about what is being spoken; this can be quite helpful for participants who are not native English speakers. If neither of these purposes are worth the effort, then your suggestion sounds dandy. If either is sufficiently valuable, then my question is why your groups haven't needed them. (I'm expecting the answer to be that your groups didn't feel the need; so my real question is why not?) FWIW, I've found Jabber scribes supplementing the audio stream useful because the audio stream alone isn't always sufficient to hear what's going on, or to know who's speaking. Problem is, it's a lot of work to scribe the audio, and it's not easy to find volunteers for that task. I do think it's helpful for someone to at least relay the names of those who step up to the mic, but that could be done with those little RFID badges we experimented with a few times. Peter ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/24/11 10:36 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had the chance to correct things I wasn't getting right, but the volume of my notes swamped the ability of anyone else to use the jabber room for discussion, asking questions, raising hands ... IMHO, something like Etherpad is better than a chatroom for collaborative note-taking. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
We've come a long way. That would make sense to me. Spencer It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had the chance to correct things I wasn't getting right, but the volume of my notes swamped the ability of anyone else to use the jabber room for discussion, asking questions, raising hands ... IMHO, something like Etherpad is better than a chatroom for collaborative note-taking. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
I've used it for various meetings (e.g., W3C/IETF coordination calls) and it's super. I've suggested to the tools team that they look into installing an instance. On 10/24/11 10:56 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: We've come a long way. That would make sense to me. Spencer It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had the chance to correct things I wasn't getting right, but the volume of my notes swamped the ability of anyone else to use the jabber room for discussion, asking questions, raising hands ... IMHO, something like Etherpad is better than a chatroom for collaborative note-taking. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
At 05:52 24-10-2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote: As jabber scribe, I view part of my responsibility as relaying questions asked on jabber (if no one else is doing so). For groups that have secretaries, I suggest that that be part of the secretary's responsibilities. The secretary is busy taking minutes. That doesn't mean that the secretary cannot draw attention if someone is asking a question on Jabber. The audio recording is a handy supplement when the speaker cannot be identified or to cross-check the details. As for remote participation, if you do not know anyone in the room you are going to be ignored. That's an IETF feature that also applies for people who attend meetings. There are little things that can help remote participants follow what is going on. Melinda Shore mentioned some of them. Most of the fixes are non-technical. If you do not go to meetings, it's unlikely that you will be able to follow the BoF you are interested in. There may be times when decisions are taken during a meeting. It is not worth the nit-picking if the outcome won't change. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
At 05:52 24-10-2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote: As jabber scribe, I view part of my responsibility as relaying questions asked on jabber (if no one else is doing so). For groups that have secretaries, I suggest that that be part of the secretary's responsibilities. The secretary is busy taking minutes. That doesn't mean that the secretary cannot draw attention if someone is asking a question on Jabber. The audio recording is a handy supplement when the speaker cannot be identified or to cross-check the details. In my experience that unfortunately happens about %10 of the time. We need some way for remote participants to virtually stand in the mic queue so they get called upon and allowed to not only ask a question, but to follow-up - especially if the presenter needs clarification on the question. As for remote participation, if you do not know anyone in the room you are going to be ignored. That's an IETF feature that also applies for people who attend meetings. There are little things that can help remote participants follow what is going on. Melinda Shore mentioned some of them. Most of the fixes are non-technical. Jabber/etc... are really bubblegum and bailing wire solutions. I have been forced to skip meetings in the past due to budget issues, and can tell you that relying on others to proxy for you just doesn't work. Despite knowing someone in the room, you are assuming they are not busy trying to work themselves either participating in the meeting, writing documents, or whatever. I've tried Skyping into meetings, jabber, whatever and it just doesn't work well because the people that ultimately must speak for you often can't. Also, you assume people know someone well enough to ask for them; which is asking a lot especially for new people. The best approach I've witnessed (and used many times) is WebEx where you can explicitly request to ask a question by virtually raising your hand, and then when the chair recognizes you, you can ask your own question. You can then interact with the presenter - and if the chairs are being sophisticated, they could project your face on a screen. You can also use this mechanism as a means when gauging consensus where the chair(s) ask for a feeling of the room and for people to raise their hands. --Tom If you do not go to meetings, it's unlikely that you will be able to follow the BoF you are interested in. There may be times when decisions are taken during a meeting. It is not worth the nit-picking if the outcome won't change. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
sm == sm s...@resistor.net writes: sm If you do not go to meetings, it's unlikely that you will be able to follow sm the BoF you are interested in. There may be times when decisions are taken sm during a meeting. It is not worth the nit-picking if the outcome won't sm change. If you are claiming that remote participation for BOFs is more challenging, then I *strongly* agree. Much of the problem is not technical, but administrative (agendas and materials being incomplete), and also proceedural (many many more cross-microphone discussions, etc.) The biggest challenge is however that we are seeing a massive increase in Bar-BOFs... it's one thing if 5 people get together to figure out a problem statement, it's another when it's announced... -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/24/2011 10:17 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: The biggest challenge is however that we are seeing a massive increase in Bar-BOFs... it's one thing if 5 people get together to figure out a problem statement, it's another when it's announced... Yes! As a process matter I'd be happy to see Bar BOFs go away as a supported activity. I'm unclear on why writing up a problem statement and trying to gin up discussion on a mailing list is no longer sufficient, but I think it's pretty clearly a symptom of process drift. I tend to think the whole clouds/data center mishegas would be going a lot better if they'd followed the conventional process and started with a problem definition (and scoping, for Pete's sake: *scoping*) rather than giving a bunch of non-technical presentations at so-called Bar BOFs, trying to develop interest. I could be wrong but my sense is that the semi-recognized partly-supported somewhat-organized insufficiently-coherent inching-towards-acceptance Bar BOF structure provides a little too much organizational support for ideas that are less than fully-formed. And yeah, since remote meeting tools aren't provided (audio, in particular) people do need to attend in person if they want to participate in one of those things. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirement to go to meetings
Here's another post out of left field. It seems to me that in order to solve the problem of remote participation in meetings, we need to decide what it means to participate in a meeting. It seems to me that the important characteristic of a meeting is that one person speaks at a time. In WG meetings, one person presents and then others que up at a mic for comments/questions. The issues I've seen only relate to the comment/question part. One group of comments deals with the difficulty of the current jabber setup to allow comments/questions to become the focus, the one person speaking. Perhaps this could be worked out with some kind of enforced protocol, such that mic speakers' questions/comments are interleaved with jabber questions/comments in some way. I think, though, it would be harder to follow threads of thought in this way, especially if there are many jabber questions/comments that come in on a specific topic while mic speakers start to follow a different issue. Some kind of policing where issues are discussed sequentially might help, but might be too restricting. Maybe it would be better to take thread discussions off the mic at some point and use some kind of forum software? A second problem is the use of jabber to discuss offline what speakers are discussing. It seems to me that this is a direct contradiction to what is supposed to occur in a meeting, where one person speaks at a time. I've never used Webex, so I can't comment on its applicability. It seems to me that jabber is not the right tool for remote meeting participation. It probably works fine for meeting monitoring along with the audio, but seems to fall short for remote meeting participation without some kind of enforced meeting protocol. Is what Melinda described enough? Should there be some kind of media Sargent-At-Arms enforcing Robert's 21st Century Rules? Jabber seems to be important for the scribe task. That's not something to be taken lightly. In fact, the whole issue of what the meeting record should be is taken too lightly, in my opinion. Should it be the audio with scribe comments, plus the Jabber record? If that's the case, a person looking up the meeting would need the audio and the scribe/jabber comments. Should it be the scribe notes, which can be undependable, even with the jabber comments? Should we be looking at voice-to-text more seriously? Seems to me that this is a universal problem that someone should have solved. If not, it's a great opportunity. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:49 AM To: SM Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings At 05:52 24-10-2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote: As jabber scribe, I view part of my responsibility as relaying questions asked on jabber (if no one else is doing so). For groups that have secretaries, I suggest that that be part of the secretary's responsibilities. The secretary is busy taking minutes. That doesn't mean that the secretary cannot draw attention if someone is asking a question on Jabber. The audio recording is a handy supplement when the speaker cannot be identified or to cross-check the details. In my experience that unfortunately happens about %10 of the time. We need some way for remote participants to virtually stand in the mic queue so they get called upon and allowed to not only ask a question, but to follow-up - especially if the presenter needs clarification on the question. As for remote participation, if you do not know anyone in the room you are going to be ignored. That's an IETF feature that also applies for people who attend meetings. There are little things that can help remote participants follow what is going on. Melinda Shore mentioned some of them. Most of the fixes are non-technical. Jabber/etc... are really bubblegum and bailing wire solutions. I have been forced to skip meetings in the past due to budget issues, and can tell you that relying on others to proxy for you just doesn't work. Despite knowing someone in the room, you are assuming they are not busy trying to work themselves either participating in the meeting, writing documents, or whatever. I've tried Skyping into meetings, jabber, whatever and it just doesn't work well because the people that ultimately must speak for you often can't. Also, you assume people know someone well enough to ask for them; which is asking a lot especially for new people. The best approach I've witnessed (and used many times) is WebEx where you can explicitly request to ask a question by virtually raising your hand, and then when the chair recognizes you, you can ask your own question. You can then interact with the presenter - and if the chairs are being sophisticated, they could project your face on a screen. You can also use this mechanism as a means when gauging consensus where the chair(s) ask
Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input)
On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual (pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or people that can generate significantly more than $10,000 per year from their IETF activities. $10,000 per year is not within a typical individual's budget. This is more especially so if the individual comes from a region of the world where the per-capita GDP is below $10,000 per year. Where does the $10,000 figure come from? It is based on the following assumptions: One trip is far, so $2,000 for airfare One trip is near, so $400 for airfare One trip is in between, so $1,200 for airfare Hotel: 6 nights (Sunday - Friday) at $200 average per night (including tax). I know, Taipei is much more than that and Vancouver, including tax, will be exactly that. However, the numbers are nice and round at $200. I often cannot afford to stay at the conference hotel; use your own numbers for your own circumstances. Meals Misc Expenses: $50/day for 6 days So, the calculation is: 3x ($650 registration fee + $1,200 average airfare + $1,200 average hotel cost + $300 meals/other) = $10,050 It is critically important to note the cost is dominated by travel and hotel. The only parameter in IETF's control is the registration fee. Even if ISOC, sponsors, or someone else endowed the IETF so we could drop the registration fee to zero, the annual cost for travel is over $8,000, which is still rather expensive. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from participating in the IETF. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from outside North America, Europe, and select (wealthy) Asian countries. However, this is one logical result of mandating people go to the face-to-face to get work done. On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei (in Winter) and Paris (in Spring). This is more like a vacation package than a get-together for engineers to solve problems face-to-face. Several of us have chatted about this last week. How about this as a recommendation? We have two meetings in fixed locations each year: Minneapolis in winter, and Phoenix in summer. The other one can be somewhere in Europe or Asia. Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount. Most of all, it encourages the participants who want to do work going there. Make sense? Ping On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.comwrote: It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual (pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or people that can generate significantly more than $10,000 per year from their IETF activities. $10,000 per year is not within a typical individual's budget. This is more especially so if the individual comes from a region of the world where the per-capita GDP is below $10,000 per year. Where does the $10,000 figure come from? It is based on the following assumptions: One trip is far, so $2,000 for airfare One trip is near, so $400 for airfare One trip is in between, so $1,200 for airfare Hotel: 6 nights (Sunday - Friday) at $200 average per night (including tax). I know, Taipei is much more than that and Vancouver, including tax, will be exactly that. However, the numbers are nice and round at $200. I often cannot afford to stay at the conference hotel; use your own numbers for your own circumstances. Meals Misc Expenses: $50/day for 6 days So, the calculation is: 3x ($650 registration fee + $1,200 average airfare + $1,200 average hotel cost + $300 meals/other) = $10,050 It is critically important to note the cost is dominated by travel and hotel. The only parameter in IETF's control is the registration fee. Even if ISOC, sponsors, or someone else endowed the IETF so we could drop the registration fee to zero, the annual cost for travel is over $8,000, which is still rather expensive. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from participating in the IETF. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from outside North America, Europe, and select (wealthy) Asian countries. However, this is one logical result of mandating people go to the face-to-face to get work done. On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input)
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:27 PM To: Melinda Shore Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input) So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? Tough call. I completely understand the need and desire to be productive without requiring meetings, for all the financial, participation, and other reasons given. But I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can take days, weeks, or even months to answer something that's holding up a working group. I suspect decisions get made in person because people show up, perhaps out of fear that they will have missed an opportunity to be heard or influence a key decision. There's a feeling that meetings produce action items, where in the list environment action items get assigned when consensus gets around to warranting it. If you're sitting on a mailing list and someone asks you to provide a document review by some date and you say nothing, there's no indication of whether or not you even got the request. If you're sitting in a meeting room and someone asks you to provide a document review by some date, that person is likely to get an answer from you right away. In short: Meetings don't stall, but lists do. And I think, therefore, that many people find the meetings important, perhaps enough so that they save all their WG energy for the meetings. I don't think it's best for maximum participation, especially given the costs of the meetings as per discussion in the other thread, but I understand why it is that way. -MSK ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
For me, the plan outlined below changes the cost of the travel from: Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200, and Short @ $400 = $3,600 to: Short @ $400, Short @ $400, Medium @ $1,200 = $2,000 HOWEVER, if I lived in Asia, the plan proposed below changes my costs from $3,600 to Long @ $2,000, Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200 = $5,200 So, instead of someone in the U.S. paying $3,600, or about 7.5% the per-capita GDP, they can pay $2,000, or about 4% of per-capita GDP, for a reduction of travel costs of about 45%. Along with that dramatic savings, there is a corresponding shifting of the travel burden. Instead of someone in China paying $3,600, or about 84% of the per-capita GDP, they can pay $5,200, or about 122% of per-capita GDP, for an increase of almost 50%. Even better, that individual most likely will have trouble getting a visa. So, not only will we succeed in ensuring a drop-off in participation by unsponsored individuals, this would be a wonderful plan to reduce participation in the IETF by people outside of North America. [Last I looked, reducing participation was NOT a goal of the IETF.] On Oct 23, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Ping Pan wrote: In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei (in Winter) and Paris (in Spring). This is more like a vacation package than a get-together for engineers to solve problems face-to-face. Several of us have chatted about this last week. How about this as a recommendation? We have two meetings in fixed locations each year: Minneapolis in winter, and Phoenix in summer. The other one can be somewhere in Europe or Asia. Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount. Most of all, it encourages the participants who want to do work going there. Make sense? Ping On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual (pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or people that can generate significantly more than $10,000 per year from their IETF activities. $10,000 per year is not within a typical individual's budget. This is more especially so if the individual comes from a region of the world where the per-capita GDP is below $10,000 per year. Where does the $10,000 figure come from? It is based on the following assumptions: One trip is far, so $2,000 for airfare One trip is near, so $400 for airfare One trip is in between, so $1,200 for airfare Hotel: 6 nights (Sunday - Friday) at $200 average per night (including tax). I know, Taipei is much more than that and Vancouver, including tax, will be exactly that. However, the numbers are nice and round at $200. I often cannot afford to stay at the conference hotel; use your own numbers for your own circumstances. Meals Misc Expenses: $50/day for 6 days So, the calculation is: 3x ($650 registration fee + $1,200 average airfare + $1,200 average hotel cost + $300 meals/other) = $10,050 It is critically important to note the cost is dominated by travel and hotel. The only parameter in IETF's control is the registration fee. Even if ISOC, sponsors, or someone else endowed the IETF so we could drop the registration fee to zero, the annual cost for travel is over $8,000, which is still rather expensive. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from participating in the IETF. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from outside North America, Europe, and select (wealthy) Asian countries. However, this is one logical result of mandating people go to the face-to-face to get work done. On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org
Re: Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input)
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. I have been involved in the IETF for 15 years now. From my first meeting, it was apparent to me that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I wonder if in realty it has ever been different. Regards Marshall Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net __**_ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietfhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:06 + Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: For me, the plan outlined below changes the cost of the travel from: Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200, and Short @ $400 = $3,600 to: Short @ $400, Short @ $400, Medium @ $1,200 = $2,000 HOWEVER, if I lived in Asia, the plan proposed below changes my costs from $3,600 to Long @ $2,000, Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200 = $5,200 So, instead of someone in the U.S. paying $3,600, or about 7.5% the per-capita GDP, they can pay $2,000, or about 4% of per-capita GDP, for a reduction of travel costs of about 45%. Along with that dramatic savings, there is a corresponding shifting of the travel burden. Instead of someone in China paying $3,600, or about 84% of the per-capita GDP, they can pay $5,200, or about 122% of per-capita GDP, for an increase of almost 50%. Even better, that individual most likely will have trouble getting a visa. Eric, I understand your intent and might even agree with your conclusion, but question an analysis based on per-capita GDP. Per-capita GDP numbers reflect population universes that are simply irrelevant to us. If you want to find, or invent, some standardized salary level for those engaged in network engineering or comparable fields, maybe. Think about the ratio of the number of network engineers (or equivalent) to the total population of a country and the problem will be clear. For this sort of comparison, percentages of per-capita GDP are just nonsense. I also note that there are some small fraction of us with medical or other constraints that make your long numbers huge underestimates. ... best, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input)
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com wrote: ... Tough call. I completely understand the need and desire to be productive without requiring meetings, for all the financial, participation, and other reasons given. But I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can take days, weeks, or even months to answer something that's holding up a working group. I suspect decisions get made in person because people show up, perhaps out of fear that they will have missed an opportunity to be heard or influence a key decision. There's a feeling that meetings produce action items, where in the list environment action items get assigned when consensus gets around to warranting it. If you're sitting on a mailing list and someone asks you to provide a document review by some date and you say nothing, there's no indication of whether or not you even got the request. If you're sitting in a meeting room and someone asks you to provide a document review by some date, that person is likely to get an answer from you right away. In short: Meetings don't stall, but lists do. And I think, therefore, that many people find the meetings important, perhaps enough so that they save all their WG energy for the meetings. I don't think it's best for maximum participation, especially given the costs of the meetings as per discussion in the other thread, but I understand why it is that way. Murray, fwiw, your analysis doesn't require f2f meetings. If it could be done, well-conducted virtual/remote meetings would work as well because they, too involve fixed cutoffs, real-time responses, and opportunity to confront those who may not be responding, etc. At the other extreme, of course, we could adopt the model used by a few other standards bodies (and perhaps left over when mailing list meant distribution of documents by post), stop expecting anything at all from mailing lists, and hold week-long (or longer) meetings that the WG level in which we expected all of the work to get done :-( john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/23/2011 4:07 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: I have been involved in the IETF for 15 years now. From my first meeting, it was apparent to me that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I wonder if in realty it has ever been different. Yes, there has always been a tension about the proper balance between list-based and f2f-based work. In recent years -- especially as we've had a greater proportion of people used to doing work /only/ in f2f -- we seem to rely on f2f more. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:46, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote: Yes, there has always been a tension about the proper balance between list-based and f2f-based work. In recent years -- especially as we've had a greater proportion of people used to doing work /only/ in f2f -- we seem to rely on f2f more. Some people find it difficult to participate at a rapid pace on mailing lists, and will strongly prefer f2f. They might also find it difficult to participate f2f but they can control the pace more. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is working group chairs, both for using meetings as deadline anchors and for doing a really crappy job managing remote participation during meetings (and thereby increasing the need to be there in person). A few do an outstanding job, a few don't even try, and most are somewhere in the middle. It may be worth doing a wg chairs training session on this topic during an upcoming meeting. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Requirement to go to meetings
Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount For whom? For me it is much cheaper and easier to go to Europe:-( From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ping Pan Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:13 PM To: Eric Burger Cc: IETF list discussion Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei (in Winter) and Paris (in Spring). This is more like a vacation package than a get-together for engineers to solve problems face-to-face. Several of us have chatted about this last week. How about this as a recommendation? We have two meetings in fixed locations each year: Minneapolis in winter, and Phoenix in summer. The other one can be somewhere in Europe or Asia. Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount. Most of all, it encourages the participants who want to do work going there. Make sense? Ping On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual (pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or people that can generate significantly more than $10,000 per year from their IETF activities. $10,000 per year is not within a typical individual's budget. This is more especially so if the individual comes from a region of the world where the per-capita GDP is below $10,000 per year. Where does the $10,000 figure come from? It is based on the following assumptions: One trip is far, so $2,000 for airfare One trip is near, so $400 for airfare One trip is in between, so $1,200 for airfare Hotel: 6 nights (Sunday - Friday) at $200 average per night (including tax). I know, Taipei is much more than that and Vancouver, including tax, will be exactly that. However, the numbers are nice and round at $200. I often cannot afford to stay at the conference hotel; use your own numbers for your own circumstances. Meals Misc Expenses: $50/day for 6 days So, the calculation is: 3x ($650 registration fee + $1,200 average airfare + $1,200 average hotel cost + $300 meals/other) = $10,050 It is critically important to note the cost is dominated by travel and hotel. The only parameter in IETF's control is the registration fee. Even if ISOC, sponsors, or someone else endowed the IETF so we could drop the registration fee to zero, the annual cost for travel is over $8,000, which is still rather expensive. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from participating in the IETF. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from outside North America, Europe, and select (wealthy) Asian countries. However, this is one logical result of mandating people go to the face-to-face to get work done. On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/23/2011 09:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is working group chairs, both for using meetings as deadline anchors and for doing a really crappy job managing remote participation during meetings (and thereby increasing the need to be there in person). A few do an outstanding job, a few don't even try, and most are somewhere in the middle. It may be worth doing a wg chairs training session on this topic during an upcoming meeting. +1 Perhaps chairs doing an outstanding job should be singled out in some way. See also http://jcp.org/en/press/news/star. - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Professional email: petit...@acm.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk6kRe4ACgkQ9RoMZyVa61cwwACbBOsaPrkUYc50Fm3XYFrC7rhv HVsAoJY2lR0QIy4RIe/2GZmRrnCbneKj =cUpA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.orgwrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/23/2011 09:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is working group chairs, both for using meetings as deadline anchors and for doing a really crappy job managing remote participation during meetings (and thereby increasing the need to be there in person). A few do an outstanding job, a few don't even try, and most are somewhere in the middle. It may be worth doing a wg chairs training session on this topic during an upcoming meeting. +1 Perhaps chairs doing an outstanding job should be singled out in some way. Or a WG training lunch on facilitating this would be in order. Marshall See also http://jcp.org/en/press/news/star. - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Professional email: petit...@acm.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk6kRe4ACgkQ9RoMZyVa61cwwACbBOsaPrkUYc50Fm3XYFrC7rhv HVsAoJY2lR0QIy4RIe/2GZmRrnCbneKj =cUpA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Oct 23, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is working group chairs, both for using meetings as deadline anchors and for doing a really crappy job managing remote participation during meetings (and thereby increasing the need to be there in person). A few do an outstanding job, a few don't even try, and most are somewhere in the middle. It may be worth doing a wg chairs training session on this topic during an upcoming meeting. Melinda I understand your point about using the meetings as an anchor but want to dig into the managing remote participation during IETF meetings better. Can you give an example of chairs that do it well and what is it they do? Then perhaps contrast with what it is that chairs that do it poorly are doing. Feel free to use me as an example of a chair that does it poorly - I have no idea how to do it so it works at all much less works well. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
I'm not sure I'd blame chairs so much, but anyway... Here's a suggestion - create a list for people who are active IETF participants but who miss a lot of meetings. (And ask people who don't match that profile, like me, to stay out of the discussion - we can read the archive if we're curious.) Let folks on that list see if they can figure out things to do that they think would make things better then bring that back here. I'm not claiming this'd fix the problem, but I'd be interested in the output and it'd avoid most of the discussion about remote attendee things being discussed by the usual suspects who do in fact go to most meetings afaics. S. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
The problem is that many of the things that make a meeting better for remote people, make it worse for local people. You can see that even in IETF meetings today - the virtual interim meetings were everyone is remote is a much better experience for remote people than meetings where lots of people are local in one room and some of the people are remote. To make any serious progress on this, I suspect we will have to discuss the trade offs of how a WG best makes progress vs fairness to people that don't/can't come. Note that depending on if you think I should have used don't or can't come in the previous sentences already highly biases the question. On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: I'm not sure I'd blame chairs so much, but anyway... Here's a suggestion - create a list for people who are active IETF participants but who miss a lot of meetings. (And ask people who don't match that profile, like me, to stay out of the discussion - we can read the archive if we're curious.) Let folks on that list see if they can figure out things to do that they think would make things better then bring that back here. I'm not claiming this'd fix the problem, but I'd be interested in the output and it'd avoid most of the discussion about remote attendee things being discussed by the usual suspects who do in fact go to most meetings afaics. S. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Nurit, I'm in the same situation, but part of the argument is right. If we do one North America, one Europe and one Asian meeting per year; places like Minneapolis and Phoenix is cheaper regardless where you come from. That is if you compare with high end cities like SF, NY AND DC. ALso places where you need an extra hop to get there. /Loa On 2011-10-23 09:43, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote: Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount For whom? For me it is much cheaper and easier to go to Europe….:-( *From:*ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *ext Ping Pan *Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:13 PM *To:* Eric Burger *Cc:* IETF list discussion *Subject:* Re: Requirement to go to meetings In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei (in Winter) and Paris (in Spring). This is more like a vacation package than a get-together for engineers to solve problems face-to-face. Several of us have chatted about this last week. How about this as a recommendation? We have two meetings in fixed locations each year: Minneapolis in winter, and Phoenix in summer. The other one can be somewhere in Europe or Asia. Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount. Most of all, it encourages the participants who want to do work going there. Make sense? Ping On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com mailto:ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual (pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or people that can generate significantly more than $10,000 per year from their IETF activities. $10,000 per year is not within a typical individual's budget. This is more especially so if the individual comes from a region of the world where the per-capita GDP is below $10,000 per year. Where does the $10,000 figure come from? It is based on the following assumptions: One trip is far, so $2,000 for airfare One trip is near, so $400 for airfare One trip is in between, so $1,200 for airfare Hotel: 6 nights (Sunday - Friday) at $200 average per night (including tax). I know, Taipei is much more than that and Vancouver, including tax, will be exactly that. However, the numbers are nice and round at $200. I often cannot afford to stay at the conference hotel; use your own numbers for your own circumstances. Meals Misc Expenses: $50/day for 6 days So, the calculation is: 3x ($650 registration fee + $1,200 average airfare + $1,200 average hotel cost + $300 meals/other) = $10,050 It is critically important to note the cost is dominated by travel and hotel. The only parameter in IETF's control is the registration fee. Even if ISOC, sponsors, or someone else endowed the IETF so we could drop the registration fee to zero, the annual cost for travel is over $8,000, which is still rather expensive. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from participating in the IETF. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from outside North America, Europe, and select (wealthy) Asian countries. However, this is one logical result of mandating people go to the face-to-face to get work done. On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net http://bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org mailto:Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org mailto:Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Loa Andersson email: loa.anders...@ericsson.com Sr Strategy
RE: Requirement to go to meetings
For Minneapolis and Phoenix we do need extra leg as well And for us it is really not cheaper -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Loa Andersson Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 7:28 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings Nurit, I'm in the same situation, but part of the argument is right. If we do one North America, one Europe and one Asian meeting per year; places like Minneapolis and Phoenix is cheaper regardless where you come from. That is if you compare with high end cities like SF, NY AND DC. ALso places where you need an extra hop to get there. /Loa On 2011-10-23 09:43, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote: Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount For whom? For me it is much cheaper and easier to go to Europe:-( *From:*ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *ext Ping Pan *Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:13 PM *To:* Eric Burger *Cc:* IETF list discussion *Subject:* Re: Requirement to go to meetings In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei (in Winter) and Paris (in Spring). This is more like a vacation package than a get-together for engineers to solve problems face-to-face. Several of us have chatted about this last week. How about this as a recommendation? We have two meetings in fixed locations each year: Minneapolis in winter, and Phoenix in summer. The other one can be somewhere in Europe or Asia. Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount. Most of all, it encourages the participants who want to do work going there. Make sense? Ping On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com mailto:ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual (pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or people that can generate significantly more than $10,000 per year from their IETF activities. $10,000 per year is not within a typical individual's budget. This is more especially so if the individual comes from a region of the world where the per-capita GDP is below $10,000 per year. Where does the $10,000 figure come from? It is based on the following assumptions: One trip is far, so $2,000 for airfare One trip is near, so $400 for airfare One trip is in between, so $1,200 for airfare Hotel: 6 nights (Sunday - Friday) at $200 average per night (including tax). I know, Taipei is much more than that and Vancouver, including tax, will be exactly that. However, the numbers are nice and round at $200. I often cannot afford to stay at the conference hotel; use your own numbers for your own circumstances. Meals Misc Expenses: $50/day for 6 days So, the calculation is: 3x ($650 registration fee + $1,200 average airfare + $1,200 average hotel cost + $300 meals/other) = $10,050 It is critically important to note the cost is dominated by travel and hotel. The only parameter in IETF's control is the registration fee. Even if ISOC, sponsors, or someone else endowed the IETF so we could drop the registration fee to zero, the annual cost for travel is over $8,000, which is still rather expensive. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from participating in the IETF. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from outside North America, Europe, and select (wealthy) Asian countries. However, this is one logical result of mandating people go to the face-to-face to get work done. On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net http://bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org mailto:Ietf@ietf.org
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Sure - there are other trade-offs, no doubt. But I think every time this topic has come up, the discussion is dominated by people that do attend meetings, and I'd be interested in what might come out if we tried that discussion just amongst non-attending active participants. If enough of 'em wanted such a list I'd be happy to get it created. (Off list mail is fine if you just want to say you'd subscribe.) S. On 10/23/2011 06:18 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: The problem is that many of the things that make a meeting better for remote people, make it worse for local people. You can see that even in IETF meetings today - the virtual interim meetings were everyone is remote is a much better experience for remote people than meetings where lots of people are local in one room and some of the people are remote. To make any serious progress on this, I suspect we will have to discuss the trade offs of how a WG best makes progress vs fairness to people that don't/can't come. Note that depending on if you think I should have used don't or can't come in the previous sentences already highly biases the question. On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: I'm not sure I'd blame chairs so much, but anyway... Here's a suggestion - create a list for people who are active IETF participants but who miss a lot of meetings. (And ask people who don't match that profile, like me, to stay out of the discussion - we can read the archive if we're curious.) Let folks on that list see if they can figure out things to do that they think would make things better then bring that back here. I'm not claiming this'd fix the problem, but I'd be interested in the output and it'd avoid most of the discussion about remote attendee things being discussed by the usual suspects who do in fact go to most meetings afaics. S. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence, there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be net-based. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence, there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be net-based. to make my troll more explicit (under an nsfw bridge?) o how does a 'town hall' of O(10^3) participants work socially? o how will/should incremental transition play out? o what are the [new] protocol needs? randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/23/11 8:59 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: Can you give an example of chairs that do it well and what is it they do? Then perhaps contrast with what it is that chairs that do it poorly are doing. Feel free to use me as an example of a chair that does it poorly - I have no idea how to do it so it works at all much less works well. It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher and liaison-y sort of person, and that remote participants are pinged regularly (and *always* before a change of topic). Decision questions should go out to the list as soon as possible, if not sooner. Make sure that questions in the room and other discussion are audible to remote folk. I'm unconvinced that having video would improve anything and while something like whiteboarding might be useful in some cases I don't think it would be used much. [As an aside I hope that the RFP process doesn't result in a fancy pile of technology that looks whizzy but doesn't actually improve meetings - I find that the current stuff works well when the chairs are thinking about remote participants] There have been a few sessions where audio wasn't working and there was nobody in the Jabber room who was in the session and could relay that information. One particularly badly-run session had the chairs completely ignoring remote participants during the entire meeting and then asking for volunteers, explicitly limiting it to people in the room even though it was longer-term work. (I wrote to the chairs and ADs after that one and never heard back from anyone). I really don't think it's that much effort and I don't think it's disruptive, but I do think it requires of chairs a somewhat different mental model of a meeting. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Randy, I might be old-fashioned, but I think the net will give us more tools that can be used together with what we already have, not (necessarily) replace them /Loa On 2011-10-23 10:47, Randy Bush wrote: perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence, there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be net-based. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Loa Andersson email: loa.anders...@ericsson.com Sr Strategy and Standards Managerl...@pi.nu Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 +46 767 72 92 13 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Loa, It seems to me this is not a tools question. This is kind of social challenge. M Sent from my iPad On 23. 10. 2011, at 20:13, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote: Randy, I might be old-fashioned, but I think the net will give us more tools that can be used together with what we already have, not (necessarily) replace them /Loa On 2011-10-23 10:47, Randy Bush wrote: perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence, there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be net-based. randy ___ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Oct 23, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 10/23/11 8:59 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: Can you give an example of chairs that do it well and what is it they do? Then perhaps contrast with what it is that chairs that do it poorly are doing. Feel free to use me as an example of a chair that does it poorly - I have no idea how to do it so it works at all much less works well. It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher and liaison-y sort of person, and that remote participants are pinged regularly (and *always* before a change of topic). Decision questions should go out to the list as soon as possible, if not sooner. Make sure that questions in the room and other discussion are audible to remote folk. I'm unconvinced that having video would improve anything and while something like whiteboarding might be useful in some cases I don't think it would be used much. [As an aside I hope that the RFP process doesn't result in a fancy pile of technology that looks whizzy but doesn't actually improve meetings - I find that the current stuff works well when the chairs are thinking about remote participants] There have been a few sessions where audio wasn't working and there was nobody in the Jabber room who was in the session and could relay that information. One particularly badly-run session had the chairs completely ignoring remote participants during the entire meeting and then asking for volunteers, explicitly limiting it to people in the room even though it was longer-term work. (I wrote to the chairs and ADs after that one and never heard back from anyone). I really don't think it's that much effort and I don't think it's disruptive, but I do think it requires of chairs a somewhat different mental model of a meeting. Melinda Ah, OK ... that sounds achievable - I certainly hope most WG these days are doing that. (and Stephen, agree with your point good to hear from people that don't god) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 23 Oct 2011, at 18:28, Loa Andersson wrote: Nurit, I'm in the same situation, but part of the argument is right. If we do one North America, one Europe and one Asian meeting per year; places like Minneapolis and Phoenix is cheaper regardless where you come from. That is if you compare with high end cities like SF, NY AND DC. ALso places where you need an extra hop to get there. +1 for Minneapolis and Prague. Relatively large travel hubs, good venues and cheap hotels. But I understand the need to spread the venues. I recall reading thelatest attempt to secure an Asian venue led to Vancouver? Perhaps WG chairs may consider more seriously not holding WG sessions if the agendas are very light? At the very least that might solve the Friday problem. But a lot is always done out of WG sessions too, which is hard to put a value on. Tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
2/3rds of the IETF meetings in the USA would exacerbate visa problems for many attendees. I don't mind some amount of regularity in meeting site, like Minneapolis, or going where it's inexpensive (by the way, the Boston area is really cheap in the winter) but I think you need more variety than that. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Ping Pan p...@pingpan.org wrote: In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei (in Winter) and Paris (in Spring). This is more like a vacation package than a get-together for engineers to solve problems face-to-face. Several of us have chatted about this last week. How about this as a recommendation? We have two meetings in fixed locations each year: Minneapolis in winter, and Phoenix in summer. The other one can be somewhere in Europe or Asia. Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount. Most of all, it encourages the participants who want to do work going there. Make sense? Ping On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual (pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or people that can generate significantly more than $10,000 per year from their IETF activities. $10,000 per year is not within a typical individual's budget. This is more especially so if the individual comes from a region of the world where the per-capita GDP is below $10,000 per year. Where does the $10,000 figure come from? It is based on the following assumptions: One trip is far, so $2,000 for airfare One trip is near, so $400 for airfare One trip is in between, so $1,200 for airfare Hotel: 6 nights (Sunday - Friday) at $200 average per night (including tax). I know, Taipei is much more than that and Vancouver, including tax, will be exactly that. However, the numbers are nice and round at $200. I often cannot afford to stay at the conference hotel; use your own numbers for your own circumstances. Meals Misc Expenses: $50/day for 6 days So, the calculation is: 3x ($650 registration fee + $1,200 average airfare + $1,200 average hotel cost + $300 meals/other) = $10,050 It is critically important to note the cost is dominated by travel and hotel. The only parameter in IETF's control is the registration fee. Even if ISOC, sponsors, or someone else endowed the IETF so we could drop the registration fee to zero, the annual cost for travel is over $8,000, which is still rather expensive. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from participating in the IETF. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from outside North America, Europe, and select (wealthy) Asian countries. However, this is one logical result of mandating people go to the face-to-face to get work done. On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Cheaper, yes. Easier? Sure, a 5-hour flight to Paris sure beats a 12-hour flight to New York plus a 4 hour flight to Minneapolis, but you end up in Paris, and if the conference hotel is too expensive for your corporate budget (it usually is for mine), you have to go really far away to find a hotel that fits the budget and is not a fleabag. OTOH any city in the US except the really huge ones (NY or LA) you can find perfectly good hotels that feature breakfast, Internet and a spacious room for way lower than the Hilton rates, and not at all far from the conference. In Anaheim I found a hotel at half price at 10 minutes walk time from the Hilton. And maybe it's just me, but with US hotels, it's far easier to tell the fleabags from the acceptable hotels than in Europe. Asia is even tougher. Flying to Taipei will take me to Paris and Hong Kong. And I have no idea how to tell a good hotel from a bad one. I'll have to trust the travel agent. On 10/23/11 6:43 PM, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) nurit.sprec...@nsn.commailto:nurit.sprec...@nsn.com wrote: Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount For whom? For me it is much cheaper and easier to go to Europe….:-( From: ietf-boun...@ietf.orgmailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ping Pan Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:13 PM To: Eric Burger Cc: IETF list discussion Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei (in Winter) and Paris (in Spring). This is more like a vacation package than a get-together for engineers to solve problems face-to-face. Several of us have chatted about this last week. How about this as a recommendation? We have two meetings in fixed locations each year: Minneapolis in winter, and Phoenix in summer. The other one can be somewhere in Europe or Asia. Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount. Most of all, it encourages the participants who want to do work going there. Make sense? Ping On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Eric Burger ebur...@standardstrack.commailto:ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote: It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual (pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or people that can generate significantly more than $10,000 per year from their IETF activities. $10,000 per year is not within a typical individual's budget. This is more especially so if the individual comes from a region of the world where the per-capita GDP is below $10,000 per year. Where does the $10,000 figure come from? It is based on the following assumptions: One trip is far, so $2,000 for airfare One trip is near, so $400 for airfare One trip is in between, so $1,200 for airfare Hotel: 6 nights (Sunday - Friday) at $200 average per night (including tax). I know, Taipei is much more than that and Vancouver, including tax, will be exactly that. However, the numbers are nice and round at $200. I often cannot afford to stay at the conference hotel; use your own numbers for your own circumstances. Meals Misc Expenses: $50/day for 6 days So, the calculation is: 3x ($650 registration fee + $1,200 average airfare + $1,200 average hotel cost + $300 meals/other) = $10,050 It is critically important to note the cost is dominated by travel and hotel. The only parameter in IETF's control is the registration fee. Even if ISOC, sponsors, or someone else endowed the IETF so we could drop the registration fee to zero, the annual cost for travel is over $8,000, which is still rather expensive. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from participating in the IETF. I do not believe we consciously want to prohibit individuals from outside North America, Europe, and select (wealthy) Asian countries. However, this is one logical result of mandating people go to the face-to-face to get work done. On Oct 23, 2011, at 6:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes: Dave On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Dave Melinda, Dave I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is Dave orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's Dave worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your Dave observation.) Dave, count this as another area where something you seem to find obvious is not obvious to me and kind of goes against my observations. I think that if you want to chair a working group or bring new work to the IETF you probably need to attend the face-to-face meetings. I haven't seen much of a change in the above. Nor have I personally witnessed a decline in the influence of people who attend remotely. In working groups I follow a number of key individuals attend the meetings less.. Some of them also spend less time on the IETF; they do seem to have lost influence, but others who still spend significant time do not seem to have lost influence. So, I'm curious what observations lead people to this conclusion. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
Randy I think that also assumes that the earth's rotation will also stop at some time during the next decade forcing us all to migrate to the sunny side of the planet. Failing that happening then with 18 hours at least (Tokyo to US West coast) of time zones (and that doesnt take into account places like Hawaii and NZ) haveing any regular or long time real time sessions is in my view impractical as someone has to do it in the middle of the night then. Andrew - Original Message - From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 12:47 PM To: Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com Cc: IETF Disgust ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence, there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be net-based. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf - This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/22/11 23:26 , Dave CROCKER wrote: On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're suggesting. Melinda, I've changed the subject line because the point you raise is orthogonal to the main thread, but since you raise it, it's worth exploring a bit (since I happen to agree with your observation.) The dynamics that make this true seem to have to do with changes in our community rather than in the nature of the technical work or the online tools. So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists? So, I'm a co-chair of a rather busy working group with a lot of remote participants, and I'm reasonably convinced that the center of gravity is the mailing list, this despite occasionaly needing three meetings to get through our agenda. I will observe having scribed for the same working group, that remote participation via the mailing list is a dramatically larger number of particpants than during the meeting itself. d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
It can indeed be challenging, but in some circumstances, the active participants of the working group don't quite span the globe. I've also found that audio conferences seem most effective if they only last an hour or maybe 90 minutes, but are held more regularly, rather than marathon on-line interim meetings. With a 10 am ET conference slot, this probably allows 90% of the IETF attendees to participate between 7 am and 11 pm. It seems to work for many international organizations - after all, organizations with offices on the west coast of the US and in India or China are not exactly uncommon. This also seems to be a common work model for other SDOs. If done well, this model has the advantage of avoiding the spikes in activity every three-four months. It requires an active moderator and good tools to manage hand raising and queuing, but these tools are becoming readily available even for plain audio conferences. (I like TOHRU as simple and effective.) Rather than looking for one magic mechanism, maybe we should try to optimize the ensemble, such as: - bug/issue trackers for the document issues late in the development cycle - email lists for general discussion and raising issues from participants who are more peripherally engaged with a WG or document - in-person meetings for early small-group work and establishing personal relationships - webinar-style mechanism for plenaries and WG status updates - regular augmented audio conferences for document-level discussions Henning On Oct 23, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Andrew Allen wrote: Randy I think that also assumes that the earth's rotation will also stop at some time during the next decade forcing us all to migrate to the sunny side of the planet. Failing that happening then with 18 hours at least (Tokyo to US West coast) of time zones (and that doesnt take into account places like Hawaii and NZ) haveing any regular or long time real time sessions is in my view impractical as someone has to do it in the middle of the night then. Andrew - Original Message - From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 12:47 PM To: Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com Cc: IETF Disgust ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence, there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be net-based. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf - This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/23/11 12:02 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher and liaison-y sort of person, and that remote participants are pinged regularly (and *always* before a change of topic). I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer needs to type everything that's said into the chatroom) but instead ask for someone to relay comments from the chatroom to the mic. In my experience, rephrasing the request in this way always results in a volunteer. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Scott Brim wrote: Some people find it difficult to participate at a rapid pace on mailing lists, and will strongly prefer f2f. They might also find it difficult to participate f2f but they can control the pace more. I've been a fairly passive meeting participant in IETF as of a few years, only been to one meeting. I don't know where work is being done at the meetings, but for some WGs with a lot of work, the official meetings are not that helpful. No real discussion can be had because of time constraints, and who can iron out a controvesial topic in a couple of hours anyway, much less 5 or 10 topics? I guess a lot of work is being done over lunch and dinner? I feel this is a matter of culture and how people are used to work. I started using FIDONET in the 80ties, for me eletronic communication and managing lots of email is not a problem. I see other people claiming seldom reading the mailinglist discussions but instead only read drafts. Drafts for me is a good way to sum up a discussion, but discussing via writing drafts isn't really a discussion. I'd rather write a summary to the list, see if people are interested and if things make sense on a high level, and THEN perhaps a draft can be written. Spending time to write a proper draft (which takes a lot of time if it's your first time) and just having it rejected as a bad idea outright is a waste of time for everybody. The WGs I participate in seem fine to work in without going to meetings though. I'm happy for that. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Requirement to go to meetings
i live in tokyo and participate in three or more continent (NA, Euro, Asia) calls a number of times a week. i am currently one quarter of the way through an eight week four continent rtw (with south africa after taipei). and it ain't my first this year. boo hoo. get real here. we want global participation. the world is big and the world is round. you gonna pay for it with jet lag, con calls at weird hours, or both. randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
