Trimming SM's email...
> There is a direct contribution of US $2.2 million by the Internet
> Society next year. Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies
> or to fix the deficit? One argument made was that the fees have not
> been increased over the last years. I'll point out that there
>
> 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 only attend once and neve
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 newcomers
that become regulars
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 attendance is largely fla
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
Hi Andy,
At 11:51 08-11-2012, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Back in the 90s, I chaired a WG that regularly had less than 10
attendees, but all of them were interested and contributed, and we
got a good set of RFCs as a result. You don't need a large number of
participants, just committed ones.
Agree
On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>> There is a direct contribution of US $2.2 million by the Internet
>>> Society next year. Is the plan to rely on Internet Society subsidies
>>> or to fix the deficit? One argument made was that the fees have not
>>> been increased over the
Hi Abdussalam,
At 06:31 09-11-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I am newcomer and not able to attend because most of meeting in
America instead of Europe.
Most of the money comes from North Americans. There is some
historical information in RFC 3717.
I don't know how long do they remain, for
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:
>>
>
On 11/10/2012 10:38 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> When I said "the ietf thinks" I reefer about the consciousness of the
> IETF as a group.
I know, I'm just not really sure it has one. I think that
there's enormous diversity among the reasons people participate
and what it is they hope to get d
On 10/11/2012 04:11, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 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.
Arturo: I think I didn't express myself well. As others have said sinc
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Adding US and Canada attendees (I counted last week, might have changed
> slightly) you get to about 51% of the attendees.
> When meetings are held in other parts of the world (like Taipei, Paris or
> Prague) Americans still make up over 40% of t
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
> 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 standard
I don't think that thoes Canada and US participants are paying for
the attendance, but their organisations, therefore, are we reducing
the cost of other organisations, or we are interested to bring more
participants. IMHO, IF the reason of making the events in America
because participation is most
Amending one line
On 11/11/12, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> The important question is how many users of the Internet now are
> spreed in the world, and should the IETF consider making attending
> easier to users than to old participants? Is n't three meeting events
> in America per two years enou
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:15:22PM +0530, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
> I don't know enough to comment about Myanmar but the argument for not
> holding a meeting in India rings quite hollow. There has been a rising
> number of participants from India (both from Indians living in India
> and abroad).
I co
Hi Vinayak,
At 02:22 11-11-2012, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
I find this logic circular. There is more participation from Americans
(people from US) so more meetings are held there and so more people
from US attend. So it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. The IAOC /
I thought so too at some point. I
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012, SM wrote:
Is there any analysis to determine whether there has been an increase in
IETF participation from these economies? Is the outreach effort a
failure?
Personally I believe there could be value in describing what the value is
to attend the meeting physically. I at
The IETF should be leading the charge for easy to use, multi-device
readiness cyberspacing virtual meeting places, including better
electronic groupware collaboration tools, etc. It is undoubtedly and
inevitably the "Achilles' Heel" for the IETF Meeting. So the IETF
needs to embrace it now, bi
The IETF should be leading the charge for easy to use, multi-device
readiness cyberspacing virtual meeting places, including better
electronic groupware collaboration tools, etc. It is undoubtedly and
inevitably the "Achilles' Heel" for the IETF Meeting. So the IETF
needs to embrace it now, big t
Hi Mikael,
For newcomers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk48xRzuNvA
At 10:06 11-11-2012, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Getting buy-in from management to allow me to go for a week
somewhere and not be available in the office, pay for hotel and
travel, plus the entrence fee, it's hard to justify to
> I don't think that thoes Canada and US participants are paying for
>the attendance, but their organisations, ...
In many cases, you are mistaken.
On 11/11/2012 18:06, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
...
> So elaborating on what the benefit of being there physically would
> probably help. Remote participation both during and between meetings is
> crucial for a lot of people I would imagine (it is for me anyway, it's
> my only chance to participate)
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
For WGs that do *not* have a low bar for entry, a detailed complaint to
the chairs and the AD would be very appropriate (and probably more
effective than a rant on this list).
Well, it's hard to say what caused an email I sent (new thread, pitchin
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> For WGs that do *not* have a low bar for entry, a detailed complaint to
>> the chairs and the AD would be very appropriate (and probably more effective
>> than a rant on this list).
>
>
On Nov 12, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> For WGs that do *not* have a low bar for entry, a detailed complaint to
>>> the chairs and the AD would be very appropriat
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson
>
> Well, it's hard to say what caused an email I sent (new thread, pitching
> idea, asking if it was relevant to the WG) to not get responded to.
>
> Perhaps it was irrelevant or uninteresting but nobody wanted to say so. I
> don't know, if I don't get a response, I
Dale said:
> One way to build up enough credibility
> to get respected people to answer you is to do thankless jobs. In
> most WGs, there are never enough people who are willing to read and
> provide detailed critiques of drafts. (And believe me, almost all
> drafts need significant improvements
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 08:00:19PM -0500, Arturo Servin wrote:
> 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.
Another is to not have any (physical) meetings, ever. I've heard
all the arguments
On 11/11/12 3:59 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I don't think that thoes Canada and US participants are paying for
the attendance, but their organisations, therefore, are we reducing
the cost of other organisations, or we are interested to bring more
participants.
Many participants, myself inclu
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:21 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 11/11/12 3:59 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>> I don't think that thoes Canada and US participants are paying for
>> the attendance, but their organisations, therefore, are we reducing
>> the cost of other organisations, or we are interested t
> From: Arturo Servin
>
> 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
> venue
In my opinion, the *location* of IETF meetings is not important for
the technological openness of the standards, but it *is* important
for its *symbolism*.
Many people seem to hold similar views about the social, political or
emotional potential of IETF venue choice.
In the 1990s, when the
On 11/10/2012 10:57 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
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 no
I won't cut all the meetings but for I would encourage to have some (or
all) interim WG meetings fully online.
We tried once in sidr, it didn't work very well but I am sure that we
can improve it.
Regards,
as
On 10/11/2012 15:08, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 08
On 11/12/12 6:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 18:06, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> ...
... snip ...
>
> There's no doubt that personal attendance is the best way to get a full
> understanding of how the IETF works, but remote participation is
> supposed to work.
I fully agree. How
On 11/14/2012 04:48 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> I've had much better remote
> participation experiences in other conferences than I've had with the IETF.
Can you provide pointers?
Ta,
S.
On 14/11/2012 17:00, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Can you provide pointers?
Lots of meetings (e.g. ixp meetings, etc) do live video, although I'd
accept that not that many meetings have as many parallel tracks as IETF.
RIPE meetings provide both live video streaming and live stenography (they
use dcr
On Nov 12, 2012, at 19:09, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Some people believe that the presence of an IETF meeting serves as a kind of
> recruitment marketing to a region, for IETF participation. Beyond the
> single-meeting boost in 'local' attendance, I believe we have no data
> confirming any on-goin
Sure!
- ICANN (Adobe Connect, so far the best I've experienced)
- Various training webinars, both as an attendee and as instructor using
the training edition of WebEx
- NANOG's video feeds are very good, although I don't recall the
platform they use (I'm sure someone will point us to it)
- Our
On 11/14/2012 9:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
(Another aspect beyond capturing regular attendees, of course, is
gaining local mindshare and relevance.
I believe I understand the concepts that are meant by such language.
But I do not know what you mean, with respect to the IETF. I especially
Dave
On 14/11/2012 17:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/14/2012 9:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> (Another aspect beyond capturing regular attendees, of course, is
>> gaining local mindshare and relevance.
>
> I believe I understand the concepts that are meant by such language. But
> I do no
On 11/14/12 4:23 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Agree. But also people (and perhaps organisations, that also are
> serious participants) in Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia
> has less income than their counterparts in North America. Some of the
> people from those places do serious e
Melinda,
On 14/11/2012 23:55, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 11/14/12 4:23 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> Agree. But also people (and perhaps organisations, that also are
>> serious participants) in Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia
>> has less income than their counterparts in North Amer
On 11/14/12 5:55 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>My opinion is that being more open and international make us a better
> standarization body and today the IETF is not doing enough.
We're a bunch of nerds, and I think that it would help if you
could be more specific about the problem you're perce
Melinda,
My point is beyond about venues.
But answering your question in how moving venues could help.
Diversity.
Going to other places would help bring people from other backgrounds,
different ideas, new ways of thinking, break paradigms, etc. People that
in oth
On 11/14/12 6:39 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> Going to other places would help bring people from other backgrounds,
> different ideas, new ways of thinking, break paradigms, etc. People that
> in other way would find difficult to participate in the IETF or probably
> wouldn't even know that a s
That it could the first of many, or the trigger to start participating
by email or remotely.
But that is my untested hypothesis. I will try to get some numbers (and
time to run the experiment) and I'll come back (hopefully kinda soon).
Cheers,
as
On 15/11/2012 01:43, Melinda Sho
On 11/14/12 7:39 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Also, for it
would be good for the ietf community know, see and live other realities,
different needs, and perhaps more constrained that the normal that we
used to.
Regards,
as
I have not contributed to the IETF activity since the 44th meeting
becau
> Going to other places would help bring people from other backgrounds,
>different ideas, new ways of thinking, break paradigms, etc.
If these people are unable or unwilling to join IETF mailing lists, why
do you think it would be useful for them to go to an IETF meeting?
If they are able a
On 14 nov 2012, at 21:08, "John Levine" wrote:
>> Going to other places would help bring people from other backgrounds,
>> different ideas, new ways of thinking, break paradigms, etc.
>
> If these people are unable or unwilling to join IETF mailing lists, why
> do you think it would be usef
On Nov 14, 2012, at 20:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 9:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> (Another aspect beyond capturing regular attendees, of course, is
>> gaining local mindshare and relevance.
>
> I believe I understand the concepts that are meant by such language. But I do
> not kn
On 15/11/2012 03:43, Melinda Shore wrote:
...
> Right, I understand that (better than you might think - I live in
> Alaska). But. I'm trying to understand the value in having people
> attend one meeting. I've asked about that several times.
There are people who have attended one, or a very smal
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter"
To: "Melinda Shore"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11 AM
> On 15/11/2012 03:43, Melinda Shore wrote:
> ...
> > Right, I understand that (better than you might think - I live in
> > Alaska). But. I'm trying to understand the value
Carsten, et al,
On 11/14/2012 11:08 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
My comment was not about getting work done, but about impact of this
work.
OK. So the choice of venue is supposed to serve two goals:
* Being useful for the workers developing IETF documents.
* Promoting that work to (p
As Arturo says, having people that traditionally go to an IETF meeting travel
to (for them) far away places and (for them) new cultures, do definitely open
their eyes to how large our world is.
I think that learning about other parts of the world is swell, but I don't
think the IETF should be
On Nov 15, 2012, at 17:04, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I'm saying that your point lacks an empirical basis
Yes.
I'm not even arguing that the IETF spend effort on obtaining that empirical
basis (hint: there is probably a great PhD thesis in organizational marketing
waiting to be written).
My hypoth
On 11/15/12 3:15 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> As Arturo says, having people that traditionally go to an IETF meeting
>> travel to (for them) far away places and (for them) new cultures, do
>> definitely open their eyes to how large our world is.
>
> I think that learning about other parts of the w
Hello,
On 11/15/12 6:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 15/11/2012 03:43, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
> We'd reached 50 attendees from China at IETF 63 before we even
> started seriously negotiating the Beijing meeting. It seems to
> me that the causality is mainly in the opposite direction:
> parti
On 11/15/12 8:47 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> I do believe that regions wanting to have an IETF meeting should also
> give back in terms of active participation, I agree with that.
I really think there's an enormous disconnect here. I'm really unclear
on how this is supposed to work: if someon
Note that I didn't say 'give back in terms of attendees' , I wrote 'give
back in terms of participation', in my mind, participation *can* be
remote, although as I mentioned in an earlier email the IETF needs to
improve remote access facilities a lot.
However, the perception of almost everyone I've
On 11/15/2012 9:43 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
be more open.
It's important to distinguish between a 'workshop' and a 'working
meeting' where decis
On 11/15/2012 4:45 AM, t.p. wrote:
I started, some years ago, with a meeting, because the culture that I
was used to was that conferences, be they annual or triannual, were
where things really happened and that e-mail filled in the gaps in
between (and I think that this remains the case in other,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/15/2012 11:59 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 4:45 AM, t.p. wrote:
>> I started, some years ago, with a meeting, because the culture that I was
>> used to was that conferences, be they annual or triannual, were where
>> things really hap
They are doing a great job, but I wouldn't said that all of that is on
IETF behalf. They are there because that is ISOC's mission, not to
represent us in the majority of their work.
If we want representation, we need to do it ourselves. ISOC would
support us, I am sure, but we nee
Hi,
On 11/15/2012 5:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> On 11/15/2012 9:43 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
>> Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
>> far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
>> be more open.
>
>
> It's important to distingui
Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
be more open.
The IAOC has often noted that holding meetings in more exotic places is
considerably more expensive, the hotels and other services just ch
On 15/11/2012 21:01, John R Levine wrote:
>> Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
>> far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
>> be more open.
>
> The IAOC has often noted that holding meetings in more exotic places is
> c
> Shall we move on?
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
IETF participants, it won't happen, and we're done.
That was simple, wasn't it?
On 16/11/2012 01:27, John Levine wrote:
>> Shall we move on?
>
> Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
I wouldn't say that we agreed on that.
We do not want to look how to pay the extra cost, we are simply not
interested. We agree on this.
Hello,
On 11/16/12 1:27 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Shall we move on?
>
> Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
> involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
> IETF participants, it won't happen, and we're done.
>
I don't remember wh
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
I wouldn't say that we agreed on that.
We do not want to look how to pay the extra cost, we are simply not
interested. We agree on this.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize this was a purely hypothetical argument.
Hi Carlos.
On Nov 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 11/16/12 1:27 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Shall we move on?
>>
>> Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
>> involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
On 16 Nov 2012, at 13:25, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> Moving the IETF forward will involve reaching out to other peoples,
> other regions, and yes, travel farther away once in a while. I also
> understand that we need to do our part in terms of fostering and
> increasing the contribution of our r
On 11/16/2012 12:27 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Shall we move on?
>
> Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
> involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
> IETF participants, it won't happen, and we're done.
I wonder how you measure/co
I wonder how you measure/count "IETF participants"...
Do you measure participants based on subscriptions to IETF
mailing-lists? -- If so, how do you assign a location to the plenty of
gTLD addresses? (including those at gmail.com)
I'm guessing based on the mail I see on the lists I'm on and the
Responses to a couple of points that people have made:
> From: "t.p."
>
> I started, some years ago, with a meeting, because the culture that I
> was used to was that conferences, be they annual or triannual, were
> where things really happened and that e-mail filled in the gaps in
> between (an
On 11/14/2012 8:48 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
On 11/12/12 6:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 11/11/2012 18:06, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
...
... snip ...
There's no doubt that personal attendance is the best way to get a full
understanding of how the IETF works, but remote participation
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Hector Santos
>
> The IETF should be leading the charge for easy to use, multi-device
> readiness cyberspacing virtual meeting places, including better
> electronic groupware collaboration tools, etc. It is undoubtedly and
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Mikael Abrahamsson
>
> Personally I believe there could be value in describing what the value
> is to attend the meeting physically. I attended the last meeting in
> Stockholm because it meant I only had to pay the entrence
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM, George, Wes wrote:
>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Mikael Abrahamsson
>>
>> Personally I believe there could be value in describing what the value
>> is to attend the meeting physically. I attended the last meeting in
>
On 11/12/2012 8:29 AM, George, Wes wrote:
Remote participants are figuratively (and often
literally) invisible, and therefore people forget about them, and
they get relegated to second-class status as a participant.
It is easy for this to be true; it takes effort to make it not true.
I be
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
