On 2010-11-12 12:32, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
...
> Do I think the introduction of badge police to control access to IETF
> WG meetings is a big deal?
I think that freeriders attending our meetings without paying their
share of costs would be a big deal.
I think that patent trolls attending our m
r expenses.
Regards,
Jordi
> From: Brian E Carpenter
> Organization: University of Auckland
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:09:46 +1300
> To: IETF discussion list
> Cc:
> Subject: Badges and blue sheets
>
> On 2010-11-12 12:32, Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>
Personally I am ok with the badge checking (as form of access control to a
non-public resource (meeting, terminal rooms)) but I can understand some of
related questions regarding who modifies ietf operation.
Regarding freeriders: agree that would be a big deal. But I am not aware of any
inciden
meeting rooms that hasn't paid,
> we can make sure that is not someone "faking" the system and attending at
> our expenses.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>> From: Brian E Carpenter
>> Organization: University of Auckland
>> Reply-To:
>>
s the case) others
which are "real" complementary.
Regards,
Jordi
> From: Marshall Eubanks
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:55:18 -0500
> To:
> Cc: IETF discussion list ,
> Subject: Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
>
>
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:3
-To:
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 03:19:46 +0100
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
>> Yes, not an issue for me, and I think is right to provide complementary
>> tickets to voluntaries, HOST, NOC and future host. May be I&#x
On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:36 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Henk,
>
> I don't agree. If there is people "essential" to the meeting but can't pay,
> as we all pay for that, we have the right to know.
I disagree with that. There is a privacy issue here. If x can't pay his way,
and needs a comp
2010 11:08:39 +0200
> To: "jordi.pa...@consulintel.es"
> Cc: "i...@ietf.org" , IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:36 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
>> Hi Henk,
>>
>> I don&#x
The general tenor of this conversation seems to be:
* Paper badges that reveal our names: BAD - Privacy risk!
* RFID badges that allow our movements to be recorded: Cool - Technology!
How about paper badges with 2D barcodes? Its not like the performance of the
RFID wireless chips is exactly impr
On 2010-11-13 02:02, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The general tenor of this conversation seems to be:
>
> * Paper badges that reveal our names: BAD - Privacy risk!
> * RFID badges that allow our movements to be recorded: Cool - Technology!
>
>
> How about paper badges with 2D barcodes?
That's
get the public funding.
Regards,
Jordi
> From: Yoav Nir
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:08:39 +0200
> To: "jordi.pa...@consulintel.es"
> Cc: "i...@ietf.org" , IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
>
>
> On Nov
On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:36 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
>> Hi Henk,
>>
>> I don't agree. If there is people "essential" to the meeting but can't pay,
>> as we all pay for that, we have the right to know.
>
> I disagree with that. There is a
> From: Marshall Eubanks
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:24:49 -0500
> To: Yoav Nir
> Cc: "i...@ietf.org" , IETF discussion list ,
> "jordi.pa...@consulintel.es"
> Subject: Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:
roblem. What is the
> RFC that allows this waiver ?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>> From: Marshall Eubanks
>> Reply-To:
>> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:24:49 -0500
>> To: Yoav Nir
>> Cc: "i...@ietf.org" , IETF discussion list ,
>&
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Reply-To:
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 06:38:16 +0800
To: IETF discussion list
Cc: "i...@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
I'm still not convinced.
If you accept to be waived, you should accept that the waiver is made
public. It is not a m
T MARTINEZ
Sent: 16 November 2010 17:31
To: IETF discussion list
Cc: i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
I just realized something ...
Note that I'm not saying that volunteer NOC is not good, but, if they are
waived from the registration fee ... Why IESG members not ?
Is
IESG, host team, future host team, others).
Regards,
Jordi
> From: Lucy Lynch
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 07:44:16 -0800 (PST)
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Cc: "i...@ietf.org" , IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets
>
>
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:49:06PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> We need a consistent policy.
I think the idea that we need a giant rule-book of policies, carefully
gone over by everyone to ensure perfect consistency among the rules
applying to different classes of people (whose situations
Amen.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:49:06PM +0100, JORDI PALE
+1
Let's stop over-thinking this and get back to work.
--Richard
On 11/16/10 5:59 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:49:06PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
We need a consistent policy.
I think the idea that we need a giant rule-book of policies, carefully
gone over
t wouldn't work to define all of the details of meetings in an
RFC.
Bob
>
>> From: Marshall Eubanks
>> Reply-To:
>> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:24:49 -0500
>> To: Yoav Nir
>> Cc: "i...@ietf.org" , IETF discussion list ,
>> "jordi.pa...@
On 11/16/2010 11:59 CST, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:49:06PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> We need a consistent policy.
>
> I think the idea that we need a giant rule-book of policies, carefully
> gone over by everyone to ensure perfect consistency among the rules
>
h case.
Let me know what the IAOC needs from me to justify my case. I'm happy to
send it publicly.
Regards,
Jordi
> From: Bob Hinden
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:17:42 -0800
> To:
> Cc: "i...@ietf.org" , Bob Hinden , IETF
> discussion list
&g
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Ok, so then let's ask for comp status.
>
> I've been paying from my own pocket all my IETF registration and traveling
> expenses from the last 2 years, and can't further do it, specially because
> it seems to me that the systems is unfair if we
another datapoint for those keeping score. I am aware of people who
register, pay
and don't attend. seems that IETF attendance is a value proposition.
is it worth it (to my organization/self) to spend the time, money,
effort to engage in the
IETF and its pr
Yoav,
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 11:08 +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:36 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> > I don't agree. If there is people "essential" to the meeting but can't pay,
> > as we all pay for that, we have the right to know.
>
> I disagree with that. There is a privacy
Perhaps we should follow the example of Oxford and Cambridge and make them
sit at a different table and do menial tasks for the Gentlemen students.
Oh wait, they abolished that in the 19th Century.
The IETF business model certainly has problems, but the proportion of
attendees paying for meeting
At 04:03 12-11-10, Shane Kerr wrote:
It is sometimes possible to create systems to meet the needs of privacy
and oversight - for example a closed review board - but I think just
publishing a list of who gets free access to each IETF is probably good
a good idea.
There is already an IETF Adminis
On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:06 AM, SM wrote:
> At 04:03 12-11-10, Shane Kerr wrote:
>> It is sometimes possible to create systems to meet the needs of privacy
>> and oversight - for example a closed review board - but I think just
>> publishing a list of who gets free access to each IETF is probably g
On Nov 14, 2010, at 5:08 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:06 AM, SM wrote:
>
>> At 04:03 12-11-10, Shane Kerr wrote:
>>> It is sometimes possible to create systems to meet the needs of privacy
>>> and oversight - for example a closed review board - but I think just
>>> publishing
--On Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:20 -0500 Marshall Eubanks
wrote:
>> How many of those are volunteers/host/NOC/future host, and
>> how many are "discretionary comp"?
>
> There was exactly 1 "discretionary" in Beijing.
>
> Wearing no hats, and just my own personal opinion, this seems
> like
Hi Yoav,
Here's the executive sound-bite:
[Allegations of corruption on the news ticker]
The IETF Chair is giving out free tickets.
Paying attendees vote for an "everyone pays" policy.
At 02:08 14-11-10, Yoav Nir wrote:
How many of those are volunteers/host/NOC/future host, and how many
a
On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:50 PM, SM wrote:
>> enough, because the corruption that we're trying to solve would
>> require collaboration between the IETF chair and the IAOC. I would
>> say that the risk is low enough that privacy trumps transparency.
>
> As you used the term "corruption", I'll go w
Keep in mind that the volunteers don't typically have any time to
partake in the meeting itself, in fact, on average they dont' even
partake in the cookie breaks. We do separately fund the NOC activities
in various ways, but in practice "free registration" only amounts to
a badge and the T-shirt
On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
> Bert on the other hand has clearly been taking advantage of us for
> years, we should put a stop to that :-)
The Secret Working Group has ways to sneak me into your meetings, which
includes bribes, corruption, intimidation, backdoors, and
don't forget the comfy chairs and soft cushions...
--bill
On 15November2010Monday, at 1:34, Bert wrote:
>
> On Nov 14, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
>
>>
>> Bert on the other hand has clearly been taking advantage of us for
>> years, we should put a stop to that :-)
>
>
> The Sec
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marshall
Eubanks [...@americafree.tv]
Wearing no hats, and just my own personal opinion, this seems like making a
mountain out of a molehill to me.
__
37 matches
Mail list logo
