> "Carlos" == Carlos M Martinez writes:
Carlos> Sure! - ICANN (Adobe Connect, so far the best I've
Carlos> experienced)
I had my first Adobe connect experience today. I care a lot more about
accessibility than most participants do. On this metric Adobe Connect
seems to score very
and some of the early activists have moved on.
If you think that good newcomers are not getting a fair hearing, recommend
them to the ADs as WG chairs. And mentor any newcomers that you happen to know.
Brian
problem. But given the constant
% increase in attendance, I doubt if it's really the case. Certainly in my
% own WG we have some very active participants who weren't at all involved when
% we started, and some of the early activists have moved on.
%
% If you think that good newcomers are not g
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:54:18 PST, Bill Manning said:
> area. So far I have had the area director hiss at me when I
> meeting and been told that certain
> area?
(No need to name names - there's ENOUGH dominant compan
> a) Was the AD hissing because the newcomer's company has made a well-
> financed but technically broken attempt to be an 800-pound gorilla in the
> area?
actually, it was not the AD, but the co-chair. and it was in the midst of
a bunch of other humorous moments in the wg. and yes indeed, an
% Bill: Could you clarify 2 things, if you know the answers to either?
%
% Valdis Kletnieks
I was not present so I could not clarify. It does seem pretty
clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
with in other v
From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:51:38 -0800
> a) Was the AD hissing because the newcomer's company has made a well-
> financed but technically broken attempt to be an 800-pound gorilla in the
> area?
actually, it was not the AD, but the co-chair.
Bill,
This is an excellent illustration of why newcomers need to be mentored.
Brian
Bill Manning wrote:
>
> % > Bill said:
> % > a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps
> % > much harder to allow individual contri
that is flush with cash, its no reason to berate people in public, even
if done in a lighthearted way.
% Bill,
%
% This is an excellent illustration of why newcomers need to be mentored.
%
%Brian
%
% Bill Manning wrote:
% >
% > % > Bill said:
% > % > a "winno
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Welcoming newcomers
Bill Manning wrote:
...
> I enjoyed a much different experience. I was asked by a couple of
> WG chairs if I would be willing to take on tasks that needed to be
> done, was invited to share opinions and thoughts b
> Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
> or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
> to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as
presented,
> was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven com
%
% > Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
% > or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
% > to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as
% presented,
% > was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a mark
> Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.
thanks for the quotes file entry!
I was not present so I could not clarify. It does seem pretty
clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
with in other venues and only after vetting are brought to the IETF
for standards approval/rubber stamping.
in my experience, plent
%
% > Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.
%
% thanks for the quotes file entry!
%
Proper attribution is then required. It came to me originally from Jon Postel
and was independently espoused by Dave Farber. I would hope that you don't
attribute things to me that come
%
% I was not present so I could not clarify. It does seem pretty
% clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
% with in other venues and only after vetting are brought to the IETF
% for standards approval/rubber stamping.
%
% in my ex
> % in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
> % but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.
> %
>
> True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
> work already complete.
outsiders have tried to treat IETF like a rubber stamp for
%
% > % in my experience, plenty of bad ideas survive such "vetting".
% > % but those who bring them to IETF still expect the rubber stamp.
% > %
% >
% > True. The point being that the IETF is becoming a "rubber-stamp" for
% > work already complete.
%
% outsiders have tried to treat IETF like
> And yes, I've seen WG try and discard earlier work...
I've seen them succeed, though perhaps not often enough.
> (btw, whats the distinguishing characteristic between an "outsider" and an "
> insider"?)
I was remembering numerous instances when an organization would issue
a press release of
e offender is assumed to come from an organization
that has a long history with IETF. He or she is presumed to
have organizational colleagues who know better. Gentle hints
have presumably failed.
I, and even the most self-proclaimed hard-nosed people I've seen
in the IETF leadership, are us
part from reading emails, I kind of feel left behind.
>
> Isaac Udotong
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 4:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Welcoming newcomers
>
>
>I can imagine, without much trouble, a scenario
>in which, e.g., someone showed up and claimed to "represent" a
>company with considerable IETF experience (and other employees
>as long-term participants), started pushing a technically
>unviable idea and justifying it on the basis of his or her
>c
I'm not a newcomer, but I don't go to meetings very often. I joined
the IETF list in 1990 and have participated in some WGs on and off
since then, but in that whole time I think I've attended only 5 IETF
meetings. So, in the stats the secretariat keeps, I don't know if I
show up as a repeat, esp
> Just look through the archives
> and you'll see that every so often someone (usually but not
> always from 'outside') will pop up in public
> and claim that the IETF is run solely by and for the benefit
> of large corporations. It isn't a particularly difficult
> argument to counter, but the da
If part of the purpose of the one-day pass is to let new attendees
understand how the IETF works, why don't we make attendance in the
newcomers' tutorial free - no paid attendance required, just
registration (for planning purposes).
I would rather have newcomers learn from the newcomers
tend.
According to Russ's slides [1] 195/1098 are newcomers. And just to labour the
point, a newcomer is not a returnee after 10 years, but someone who has never
attended before.
This number (around 10%) seems consistent over all meetings. So naively, we
should be growing our attendance by aroun
David Harrington wrote:
If part of the purpose of the one-day pass is to let new attendees
understand how the IETF works, why don't we make attendance in the
newcomers' tutorial free - no paid attendance required, just
registration (for planning purposes).
I think this is a good
On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
David Harrington wrote:
If part of the purpose of the one-day pass is to let new attendees
understand how the IETF works, why don't we make attendance in the
newcomers' tutorial free - no paid attendance required, just
registr
d how the IETF works, why don't we make
>>> attendance in the newcomers' tutorial free - no paid
>>> attendance required, just registration (for planning
>>> purposes).
>>>
>> I think this is a good idea.
>
> +1 from me, unless it creates so many
At 3:30 PM -0400 8/21/09, John C Klensin wrote:
>If someone buys a day pass --for any day of the week-- admission
>to the newcomer's tutorial session, any other sessions that they
>can get into on Sunday, the Sunday reception unless there are
>serious sponsor constraints, and both plenaries are fre
John C Klensin wrote:
> Let me extend the suggestion a bit, although I'm happy to leave
> the decision as to how many of these experiments to layer on
> each other in a given meeting to the IESG and IAOC:
>
> If someone buys a day pass --for any day of the week-- admission
> to the newcomer's tut
--On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton
wrote:
>...
> So, if someone doesn't get at
>> least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even
>> if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than
>> just open the doors.
> I disagree here. I think that opening th
John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Sunday, August 23, 2009 14:18 -0700 Doug Barton
> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> So, if someone doesn't get at
>>> least a day pass, I'd be happier if we charged a nominal (even
>>> if only $10 - $20) fee for registration for the tutorial than
>>> just open the doors.
>
>> I
emote participants as to f2f
> attendees. Until and unless a newcomer's tutorial can be
> prepared that is focused on remote participants, even that
> session should be of interest.
>
> For this particular meeting all of the following seem relevant
> to at least some
On 7/27/2013 7:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
"newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
interfere with the ongoing process of the group"
...
The first quote might discourage newcomers from participating.
On 28/07/2013 00:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/27/2013 7:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>> "newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
>>>> observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
>>>> interfere with the ongoing proc
ives beforehand, in
> order to familiarize themselves with the technology under
> discussion. This may represent a challenge for newcomers, as e-
> mail archives can be difficult to locate and search, and it may
> not be easy to trace the history of longstanding W
On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
> provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
> This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may
> include implementers. Can that be
ally teach us a trick or two) :-)
If there is a possibility, however remote, that someone, irrespective
or age or any other attributes, can teach me something I believe that
it is worthwhile to be open to that. Yes, it may have been tried
before. And yes, there is a history of failure.
However
On 27/07/13 23:22, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may
include
urage diversity, but again, that's in the interest of
getting work done (and getting our work correct). But back to
the original question of how to bring newcomers in through
remote participation - I would start with the assumption that
they'd be participating, remotely or otherw
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
> > I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
> > provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
> > This includes newcomer
> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
> something closer to conferences, or to dumbing things down to
> accommodate newcomers who I gather from discussion so far don't have
> anything particular in mind.
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly sug
On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
> projectors and screens.
Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'd be good with that."
Melinda
> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
> something closer to conferences,
with poster sessions!
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
On 7/27/13 8:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
>> something closer to conferences,
> with poster sessions!
A!
Melinda
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
>> projectors and screens.
>
> Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'd be good with that."
As would I.
Keith
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:23 AM,
wrote:
>> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
>> something closer to conferences,
>
> with poster sessions!
And mandatory suit and tie (or women's equivalent business attire) for
presenters and chairs.
On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
>>> projectors and screens.
>>
>> Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly s
On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>>>
On 7/27/13
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:47 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moo
On Jul 28, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 07/28/2013 09:47 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>>
>>> On 07/28/2013
As an off-topic note, thanks to Alexa, Alexey, Jari, Lorenzo and the
Meetecho team.
At 16:52 27-07-2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
What do you mean by conference? too much information inferred in
your term that may confuse others on the list. Will appreciate, if
you can share bit more on it, behin
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Melinda Shore
> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
>> > I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
>> > provide short video overviews to help people understand the work
e the ratio can vary depending on the WG
area.
But back to
the original question of how to bring newcomers in through
remote participation - I would start with the assumption that
they'd be participating, remotely or otherwise, because they
have some networking problem (and possibly
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> nroff still works fine for me. It's already there in Mac OS X.
>
>
Only the topic of the conversation is how to get more people involved in
IETF, not how to make them run away screaming and crying.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Even in context is rude. Even when doing it is because of practical
reasons and for the good use of the scarce meeting time, I think that is
one of the reasons why the IETF is so intimidating for newcomers.
Regards,
as
On 7/27/13 10:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> > It&#x
t;> accommodate newcomers who I gather from discussion so far don't have
>> anything particular in mind.
>
> yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
> projectors and screens.
>
> randy
>
etings
>
> (I have never done it, but it seems interesting).
>
> Regards,
> as
>
> On 7/28/13 6:13 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
> >> something closer to conferences, or to dumbing things do
> Regards,
> as
>
> On 7/28/13 6:13 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
> >> something closer to conferences, or to dumbing things down to
> >> accommodate newcomers who I gather
On Jul 28, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> That may work as well.
>
> It depends on the time that the presenters have to make the material
> available.
>
> The important is to have discussion-material available in advance. It
> could be a presentation or a video (
Douglas,
Totally agree that a requirement is that F2F and remote are equals.
I even believe that a presentation-less format (as the described) is
better for remote participants.
About the minor changes, perhaps. Not very convinced but it could be.
In the same line, what about to have
On Jul 28, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Even in context is rude. Even when doing it is because of practical
> reasons and for the good use of the scarce meeting time, I think that is
> one of the reasons why the IETF is so intimidating for newcomers.
There's a car
On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>>
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
projectors and screens.
>>>
>>> Then I guess it's time for my quarterly "I'd be good with that."
>>
>> As would I.
>
> Me too, as long as we get whiteboards or flip-ch
opriate. And I agree that the meetings are not a place
for education. And I agree that we should not become an organisation where the
f2f time gets the primary role.
However. Newcomers are not all alike. The student coming here to observe the
IETF. The researcher who understands the field we a
Hi Dave,
I am not Jari, but I do have an opinion on your thoughts below...
On 7/29/13 1:25 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more
interesting this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's worth
pressing on several fron
ffort -- and major open issues.
>
> I'll suggest that it be updated after every meeting.
>
> Arguably, this sort of status statement is good to have even without
> newcomers, since it forces working groups to face the question of what
> progress they are and are not making.
>
&
At 22:25 28-07-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more
interesting this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's
worth pressing on several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate
such folk better, as well as be clear abou
orking group meeting would be inappropriate. And I agree
that the meetings are not a place for education. And I agree that we
should not become an organisation where the f2f time gets the primary
role.
> >
> > However. Newcomers are not all alike. The student coming here to
observe the
On Jul 29, 2013, at 3:59 PM, t.p. wrote:
> I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the
> IETF has found their working group. This is not always easy. Fine if
> your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other
> spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a 'w
er than looking for things that will make cute
acronyms. Whether we move in that direction or not, most
newcomers and isolated/remote participants are going to find it
easier to identify an Area of interest than a specific WG. A
well-written Area Report that includes brief descriptions of the
main
om.
>
> In the context of the current discussion, a set of well-written
> and frequently-updated area reports could also be a big help to
> a newcomer trying to navigate WG names and acronyms. I agree
> that it would probably help to be more descriptive about WG
> names rather th
Dave,
> I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more interesting
> this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's worth pressing on
> several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate such folk better, as well
> as be clear about when
>
> That we are not reflects our inability to retain, not our inability to attract
> (assuming that we are not completely refreshing the IETF attendance every
> three
> or four years). Should not be rocket science to follow up with some newcomers
> to
> find out why they
There's obviously a subset of the "newcomers" who only attend because a
meeting is local or otherwise convenient to attend, or come with narrowly
focused interests, and never planned to become a regular.
Since attendance is largely flat over last few years, obviously newcom
Hi Andy,
At 07:31 08-11-2012, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
There's obviously a subset of the "newcomers" who only attend
because a meeting is local or otherwise convenient to attend, or
come with narrowly focused interests, and never planned to become a regular.
Yes.
Since attend
SM,
I was following this working group which will likely be shut down because
> there is not enough participation. There are quite a few working group
> which fit that profile. I prefer not to view things as "actually not in a
> bad place" as it encourages complacency.
>
Back in the 90s, I chai
ones.
Agreed.
The thread that Adrian commented about was Newcomers. During
yesterday's plenary someone mentioned mentorship. These (new)
participants will be the committed ones of tomorrow or else there is
no tomorrow.
Regards,
-sm
in either Europe or Asia
>> I am repeatedly struck by how many new people *do* attend.
>>
>
> I don't know how long do they remain, for me I am feeling disapointed.
Some come back, and some don't. Could you expand on what you're disappointed
about?
>> Accordin
nce a long time. In practice, newcomers are given a
slight advantage. It depends on whom you are dealing with. The
suggestion is to be patient with the old people.
For me I still did n't attend but understand that many old
participants are biased and there seems no equal opportunity, pe
So basically the IETF is roaming most of the time in North America,
sometimes in Europe and once in a while in Asia. Is that how the IETF
thinks about the global development of Internet standards?
No wonder why some countries in Africa and Latin America are
approaching ITU.
Hi Arturo,
At 15:26 09-11-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
So basically the IETF is roaming most of the time in North America,
sometimes in Europe and once in a while in Asia. Is that how the IETF
thinks about the global development of Internet standards?
No wonder why some countries
SM
On 09/11/2012 19:42, SM wrote:
> Hi Arturo,
> At 15:26 09-11-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> So basically the IETF is roaming most of the time in North
>> America,
>> sometimes in Europe and once in a while in Asia. Is that how the IETF
>> thinks about the global development of Internet
Arturo,
On 09/11/2012 23:26, Arturo Servin wrote:
> So basically the IETF is roaming most of the time in North America,
> sometimes in Europe and once in a while in Asia. Is that how the IETF
> thinks about the global development of Internet standards?
No. The criterion has always been to
Brian,
Your comment just reinforce my perception that the IETF is not
interested in being an global organization of standards.
People is asking how to evolve the IETF, well, one possibility is to
start thinking global and to reach more people outside the common
venues. It is more expensiv
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
> SM
>
> On 09/11/2012 19:42, SM wrote:
> >
> > Fred Baker mentioned that:
> >
> > "The issues are now related to success in finding affordable venues."
> ICANN finds them, the IGF does it, the RIRs do it. Why not the IETF?
>
> > The IAOC Chair c
On 11/9/12 8:00 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Brian,
Your comment just reinforce my perception that the IETF is not
interested in being an global organization of standards.
People is asking how to evolve the IETF, well, one possibility is to
start thinking global and to reach more people o
arturo,
many of us have the message that you think the ietf should meet in alyc.
so qui bitching, find a locale/hotel, a host, and the connectivity in
somewhere not too hard to reach (i.e. not a puddle-jumper for the last
hour). then propose it for one or more of dates which are open.
i'll leave
Hi Arturo,
At 17:00 09-11-2012, Arturo Servin wrote:
Your comment just reinforce my perception that the IETF is not
interested in being an global organization of standards.
There are some interesting observations in
draft-jaeggli-interim-observations-03. For example:
"Some entities re
Randy,
It's not bitching, it self criticism. I think that the IETF thinks
that it is very open but in reality it could do better.
And about your suggestion, it is my todo list.
Regards,
as
On 10/11/2012 06:14, Randy Bush wrote:
> arturo,
>
> many of us have the message that you think th
> about your suggestion, it is my todo list.
if i can be of help, holler
randy
The IAOC site team is planning to visit several potential venues early next
year in Latin America / South America. We are open to suggestions for
potential venues to evaluate.
Thanks,
Bob
On Nov 10, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> about your suggestion, it is my todo list.
>
> if i ca
On 11/10/2012 5:35 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> It's not bitching, it self criticism. I think that the IETF thinks
> that it is very open but in reality it could do better.
I'm not sure the IETF can "think" anything, but openness is
an institutional value and goal, and we're sometimes more
succe
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>
> I think that we haven't done a sufficiently good job of
> acculturating newer participants and that can probably make
> the organization look more opaque and closed than it actually
> is. Most (but not all) working groups don't have eno
Bob,
Nice to hear that.
I will send off-list to the IAOC some venues, possible hosts and people
that could help in finding a good place.
Regards
as
On 10/11/2012 13:26, Bob Hinden wrote:
> The IAOC site team is planning to visit several potential venues early next
> year in Lat
Arturo,
On Nov 10, 2012, at 13:31, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Bob,
>
>Nice to hear that.
>
>I will send off-list to the IAOC some venues, possible hosts and people
> that could help in finding a good place.
Thanks,
Bob
>
> Regards
> as
>
> On 10/11/2012 13:26, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Th
Melinda,
When I said "the ietf thinks" I reefer about the consciousness of the
IETF as a group.
I disagree with you about meeting location as a factor "openness". I
think that it is an important one to consider. Language is another, but
I am not going there now.
Regards,
as
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 08:00:19PM -0500, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Hard times may come, some people will ask why the Internet standards
> are just developed in some places and will challenge us.
And here I thought that the standards were developed on the list.
(For the record, I am not opposed
Right. See RFC 4144.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Mary Barnes
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Melinda Shore
> wrote:
>>
>
1 - 100 of 229 matches
Mail list logo
