On 3 Aug 2013 11:14, "Ole Jacobsen (ole)" wrote:
>
> It was never a distraction until AB started complaining about it. Been
serving a useful purpose for many, many years. Procmail is your friend.
>
+1 for that
--- Roger ---
> Ole J. Jacobsen
> Editor & Publisher
> http://cisco.com/ipj
>
> Sent f
All,
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
I don't think its main benefit is be to stop excessive or of topic
posting. I'm not saying that list managers and list owners should look
at that aspect.
At least for me it serves as a safety net whe
I attended meetings 36 through 62 in-person, missing about 1 in 4. I've never
attended a meeting in asia-pacific, as about half were paid out of my own
pocket, That was in the days of multicast, and I never got an mbone tunnel
working, although Joe Abley and I once *saw* them in tcpdump go past
Hi Abdussalam,
The IETF Chair used "AB" as your name in his report during the
plenary. I assume that it is okay for me to call you
"Abdussalam". I should have used "Mr Baryun" as that is how it is
done in some cultures.
Somebody (outside the IETF) wrote that, in general, those living in
r
On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> The participation in the IETF is already pseudonymous. I have a driver's
> license, a passport, and a national ID card, all proving that my name is
> indeed Yoav Nir. But I have never been asked to present any of them at the
> IETF. I claim to work
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 07:27 -0400 Michael Richardson
wrote:
>...
> > * On several occasions this week, slides were uploaded
> > on a just-in-time basis (or an hour or so after that).
>
> Agreed. I'd like to have this as a very clear IETF-wide
> policy. No slides 1 week before h
While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons, reading
the slides early isn't that important. What is important is that remote
people see the slides at the same time as local people. For that, it seems to
me that Meetecho support does exactly what is needed. You jus
On Aug 4, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> The participation in the IETF is already pseudonymous. I have a driver's
>> license, a passport, and a national ID card, all proving that my name is
>> indeed Yoav Nir. But I have never been asked t
On Aug 4, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> No, I use a credit card in the name of my company's "head of purchasing", so
> not in my name.
Why wouldn't that be sufficient to identify you? Is the head of purchasing
going to protect your anonymity?
> I would never lie at trial. But the name
>If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
>summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
Seems like rough consensus to me.
R's,
John
On 8/4/13 11:53 AM, John Levine wrote:
> As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
More to the point, the objections that are being raised appear
to be bogus and based in a misunderstanding of how the IETF
operates.
Melinda
On 04/08/13 20:53, John Levine wrote:
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
Seems like rough consensus to me.
+1
Aaron
R's,
John
On 4 Aug 2013, at 20:53, "John Levine" wrote:
>> If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
>> summary - I strongly object.
>
> As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
>
> Seems like rough consensus to me.
And the code is running…
Tim
At last week's very successful Berlin meeting, the finances were
thrown of whack by the late discovery that the IETF had to pay 19%
German VAT on the registration fee. At the IAOC session they said
that about half of that is likely to be reclaimed from VAT paid, but
the net amount is still a large
OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the slides 1
week in advance?
You have the agenda and drafts 2 weeks in advance. The slides aren't
normative. Even when they're not about a draft in particular, the slides are
not self-standing documents. They're merely to help
On 05/08/2013 06:54, Ted Lemon wrote:
> While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons,
> reading the slides early isn't that important. What is important is that
> remote people see the slides at the same time as local people. For that, it
> seems to me that Meetecho
I'm less concerned about having slides than having the issues that need
discussion clear. An agenda of documents and issues tells potential
participants what they need. Slides are needed if and only if there is no
document.
--On Sunday, August 04, 2013 19:53 + John Levine
wrote:
>> If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
>> summary - I strongly object.
>
> As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks
> it's fine.
I do not want to be recorded as thinking it is fine. If
On Aug 4, 2013, at 11:11 PM, John Levine wrote:
> At last week's very successful Berlin meeting, the finances were
> thrown of whack by the late discovery that the IETF had to pay 19%
> German VAT on the registration fee. At the IAOC session they said
> that about half of that is likely to be r
On Aug 4, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> There is another equally important reason for having them well in advance,
> for both on-site and remote attendees: so that participants can review
> them in advance, decide which of several clashing sessions to attend, and
> even prepare q
First, I'd like to highlight something that is important. There is no inherent
preference to posting a lot, a moderate amount, or none at all. Everything
depends on context. If you are providing useful input and furthering the
discussion, a lot of mails is ok. And no mails can be a problem, too,
At last week's very successful Berlin meeting, the finances were
thrown of whack by the late discovery that the IETF had to pay 19%
German VAT on the registration fee. At the IAOC session they said
that about half of that is likely to be reclaimed from VAT paid, but
the net amount is still a larg
On 08/04/2013 09:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Finally: a deadline one week before the meeting is no harder to meet
> than one minute before the meeting.
Disagree. I often end up updating stuff late in the day and that
should continue to be fine.
Secondarily, its my impression that people a
We're all different, and for my purposes, in all honesty, having
slides unavailable until 45 seconds before a session start hasn't
been an issue as a remote participant. It's definitely aggravating
as a chair, though, since we need to get those uploaded via the
meeting materials manager. Overall,
On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:25 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> First, probably to the "when meetings begin" part, but noting
> that someone who gets onto the audio a few minutes late is in
> exactly the same situation as someone who walks into the meeting
> room a few minutes late -- announcements at the b
On 04/08/13 23:37, Melinda Shore wrote:
We're all different, and for my purposes, in all honesty, having
slides unavailable until 45 seconds before a session start hasn't
been an issue as a remote participant. It's definitely aggravating
as a chair, though, since we need to get those uploaded vi
On 8/4/2013 3:10 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
OK, I'll bite. Why do you and Michael believe you need to have the slides 1
week in advance?
You have the agenda and drafts 2 weeks in advance. The slides aren't
normative. Even when they're not about a draft in particular, the slides are
not self
On Aug 4, 2013, at 11:47 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>>> At last week's very successful Berlin meeting, the finances were
>>> thrown of whack by the late discovery that the IETF had to pay 19%
>>> German VAT on the registration fee. At the IAOC session they said
>>> that about half of that is likel
Regarding the need for presentations early to get them translated, and the
"non-Procrustean"[1] improvement of having cutoffs for presentations of new
drafts: new drafts are still submitted 2 weeks in advance, and ISTM that a real
non-Procrustean tactic would be to let the WG chairs do their jo
On 8/4/2013 8:36 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Regarding the need for presentations early to get them translated, and the
"non-Procrustean"[1] improvement of having cutoffs for presentations of new
drafts: new drafts are still submitted 2 weeks in advance, and ISTM that a real
non-Procrustean tact
30 matches
Mail list logo
