All
The IAOC is conducting an anonymous and short survey about your IETF
meeting experience generally, and specifically your experience at IETF
76 in Hiroshima, Japan. It will be used to make improvements at future
meetings where needed (and possible).
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YJMWZ
All;
The IAOC is interested in your feedback on IETF meetings in general and
IETF 68 in Prague. Your responses to a short survey will help us prepare
for and conduct these meetings. Your participation is anonymous and
candor is appreciated.
The survey is available until May 4th and can be f
All:
To
assist the planning of future meetings, we
ask you kindly to spend a minute or two responding
to the on-line survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=465231656574
Even if
you did not attend IETF 64 in Vancouver, we would
value your responses.
All responses will be treated anony
> The IAOC is interested in your feedback on IETF meetings in general and
> IETF 68 in Prague. Your responses to a short survey will help us prepare
> for and conduct these meetings. Your participation is anonymous and
> candor is appreciated.
>
> The survey is available until May 4th and can
There was no place for comments on the "breakfast question".
I think an important criterion is not just whether the CONTRACTED HOTEL
provides breakfast, but whether, in addition, the OTHER HOTELS IN THE AREA
where IETF-ers are likely to stay, provide breakfast.
If we are in a city where MOST HOT
Janet P Gunn wrote:
But if it is ONLY the "contracted hotel" that provides breakfast, and
the other hotels do not, then I think that the meeting should provide at
least SOME breakfast items.
Whether a break period should or should not include food might be a
reasonable question, given the
Good question.
But that isn't how the survey question was phrased.
The question wasn't "should IETF provide breakfast (in general)?"
The question was "should IETF skip breakfast if the contract hotel
provides it?", which seems to presume that IETF WILL continue to provide
(continental) breakfas
--On Thursday, 19 April, 2007 07:25 -0400 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether a break period should or should not include food might
> be a reasonable question, given the limited time to forage for
> food elsewhere.
>
> But what is the reason for presuming that the IETF has an
> o
All;
More than 1,250 of you attended IETF 65 in Dallas and many others
attended sessions remotely. Yet only 155 of you have responded to a
survey intended to make future meeting experiences more successful.
There are only 74 days left before IETF 66 in Montreal, only 74 days
during which th
I tried, but got
There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it
cannot be displayed.
Please try the following:
Click the Refresh button, or try again later.
Open the www.surveymonkey.com home page, and then look for links to
the information you want.
HTTP 500.100 - Int
Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All;
>
> More than 1,250 of you attended IETF 65 in Dallas and many others
> attended sessions remotely. Yet only 155 of you have responded to a
> survey intended to make future meeting experiences more successful.
> There are only 74 days left before I
> More than 1,250 of you attended IETF 65 in Dallas and many others
> attended sessions remotely. Yet only 155 of you have responded to a
> survey intended to make future meeting experiences more successful.
Maybe we need to provide more incentive. ARIN enters those that
complete their survey i
y Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "ietf@ietf.org"
> Asunto: Re: IETF Meeting Survey - Last Call
>
>> More than 1,250 of you attended IETF 65 in Dallas and many others
>> attended sessions remotely. Yet only 155 of you have responded to a
>> survey in
for transparency, I did the survey last week. Doing
it was relatively painless, and I don't think it took more than 10
minutes.
Regards,
Ed Juskevicius
-Original Message-
From: Ray Pelletier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 6:48 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sub
Well, obviously, those of us that did the survey should be rewarded
by having the consensus results acted upon ... if people don't like
the results in Montreal, they'll have more of an incentive to take
the survey at that time.
More seriously, Ray might get more of a result if he sent the requ
On 26-apr-2006, at 12:47, Ray Pelletier wrote:
More than 1,250 of you attended IETF 65 in Dallas and many others
attended sessions remotely. Yet only 155 of you have responded to
a survey
Isn't that more than enough to draw statistically significant
conclusions?
And when can we see the
All;
Some of you have experienced difficulty completing the survey.
The
problem has been fixed according to the vendor - a page rendering
issue. Please
retry and let me know if you cannot complete the survey.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=649182049947
Thanks
Ray
Ray Pelletier wrote:
Al
Is it because only two hundred people read the IETF discussion list?
No, because it was also announced on the ietf-announce list which has
many more subscribers than this one. (Something to do with signal to noies
ratios.)
And btw we deliberately target everybody, and not just meeeting atten
18 matches
Mail list logo
