On 2011-10-24 18:58 Peter Saint-Andre said:
I've used it for various meetings (e.g., W3C/IETF coordination calls)
and it's super. I've suggested to the tools team that they look into
installing an instance.
Etherpad has now been installed on one of the tools servers, and a link
to a notes
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
On 2011-10-24 18:58 Peter Saint-Andre said:
I've used it for various meetings (e.g., W3C/IETF coordination calls)
and it's super. I've suggested to the tools team that they look into
installing an instance.
On 11/9/2011 10:47 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Why not keep this as supplemental materials even once the official
minutes are posted ?
Why not include the jabber logs the same way ?
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
Hi Marshall,
On 2011-11-09 15:47 Marshall Eubanks said the following:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
On 2011-10-24 18:58 Peter Saint-Andre said:
I've used it for various meetings (e.g., W3C/IETF coordination calls)
and it's super. I've suggested
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com wrote:
Hi Marshall,
On 2011-11-09 15:47 Marshall Eubanks said the following:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Henrik Levkowetz hen...@levkowetz.com
wrote:
On 2011-10-24 18:58 Peter Saint-Andre said:
I've used it for
Why not include the jabber logs the same way ?
The jabber logs are organized with one log per day, so figuring out the
right link based on the meeting number isn't perfectly trivial. Also,
I'm not sure those logs are used sufficiently often that such a link
merits a place in the regular
On 27 Oct 2011, at 12:03, Richard Kulawiec wrote:
I support this concept, although I would go much further and
eliminate ALL face-to-face meetings.
I absolutely wouldn't.
Travel (for meetings) is expensive, time-consuming, energy-inefficient,
and increasingly difficult.
Your assertions
+1
Donald
On Friday, October 28, 2011, Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
On 27 Oct 2011, at 12:03, Richard Kulawiec wrote:
I support this concept, although I would go much further and
eliminate ALL face-to-face meetings.
I absolutely wouldn't.
Travel (for meetings) is
Hi Martin,
At 22:42 26-10-2011, Martin Sustrik wrote:
That can be either bad thing (too few experts, no good estimate
about participation in the potential working group) or a good thing
(random selection of IETF participants tests the sanity of the proposal).
The second point is quite
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net wrote:
Mary;
** **
Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom
to become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without
hearing these comments?
** **
Ross
[MB]
On Oct 27, 2011, at 2:54 AM, SM wrote:
There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG.
I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there actually
is such a requirement. What there isn't a requirement for is a Bar BOF (and I
would argue that there *is* a requirement
Hi Fred,
On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG.
I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there
actually is such a requirement. What there isn't a requirement for is a Bar
BOF (and I would argue that there
On 10/27/2011 4:03 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
There isn't any requirement for a BoF to form a WG.
I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there
actually is such a requirement.
...
Actually, there isn't, technically,
On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there
actually is such a requirement.
Either you are incorrect, or the new MILE WG was chartered incorrectly. I'm
hoping it is the former.
What there isn't a requirement for is a
Subject changed, this is about to go off in a different
direction.
--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 08:38 -0500 Mary Barnes
mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
...
[MB] No, I do not think the comments should be public. My
point was that there is such a small percentage of the
community that
Sounds like I made an error...
On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
I think you're saying that there shouldn't be; at this instant, there
actually is such a requirement.
Either you are incorrect, or the new MILE WG was chartered
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:39 AM
To: Ross Callon
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre; John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ross Callon
rcal...@juniper.netmailto:rcal...@juniper.net wrote:
Mary;
Would you want the comments
--On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:17 -0400 Donald Eastlake
d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of
going back to 4 meetings a year than going to 2...
That is why I didn't suggest going to 2 but dropping the f2f
count to two _and_ insisting that
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 05:48:07PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Eliminate one of the face to face meetings entirely -- go to two
a year and either hold the 4 3/4 day schedule or, better cut it
back to four. [snip]
I support this concept, although I would go much further and
eliminate ALL
On Sun Oct 23 17:19:23 2011, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to
mailing lists?
In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is
working group chairs,
I'd add the cultural problem that
On 10/25/11 3:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote:
the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier
and cheaper for us to go to. ;-)
I think that a lot of
Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of going back
to 4 meetings a year than going to 2...
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:38
On 10/26/11 10:17 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Nothing happens without deadlines. I'd be more in favor of going back
to 4 meetings a year than going to 2...
Use virtual interim meetings (etc.) as a forcing function. There's more
than one way to set a deadline.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/25/11 3:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote:
the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier
and cheaper for us to go to. ;-)
I think
- Original Message -
From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:06 PM
t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
(e.g., the NomCom
schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
no problem. We stop having the nomcom.
(he ducks)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
(e.g., the NomCom
schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
no problem. We stop having the nomcom.
Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the
members
t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net
t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net
But _why_ is that something holding up a working group?
Because they are the one holding the token, usually the editorship of
the I-D, and everyone else
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote:
On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
(e.g., the NomCom
schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year).
no problem. We stop having the nomcom.
26, 2011 4:52 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
stpe...@stpeter.immailto:stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter
On 10/27/2011 5:00 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
Mary;
Would you want the comments that are currently sent in privately to nomcom to
become public, or do you want the voters to make their choices without hearing
these comments?
The general implication of Ross's question comes from the entirely
On 10/24/2011 07:16 PM, SM wrote:
If you do not go to meetings, it's unlikely that you will be able to
follow the BoF you are interested in. There may be times when decisions
are taken during a meeting. It is not worth the nit-picking if the
outcome won't change.
As BoFs are held in early
- Original Message -
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity
- Original Message -
From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net
To: John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:46 PM
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
... I
t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com wrote:
From: John Leslie j...@jlc.net
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
... I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done
on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote:
On 10/24/2011 10:17 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
The biggest challenge is however that we are seeing a massive increase
in Bar-BOFs... it's one thing if 5 people get together to figure out a
problem statement,
On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote:
the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for
us to go to. ;-)
I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a number of problems
that need to be solved to make them cheaper to attend.
One is the issue
--On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 -0700 Fred Baker
f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Ping Pan wrote:
the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier
and cheaper for us to go to. ;-)
I think that a lot of people would like that. There are a
number of
get real here. we want global participation. the world is big and the
world is round. you gonna pay for it with jet lag, con calls at weird
hours, or both.
Or none ... there is simple solution like meeting recording, but for
some reason IETF proceedings are very crappy in linking wg
On 10/23/11 23:45 , Robert Raszuk wrote:
get real here. we want global participation. the world is big and the
world is round. you gonna pay for it with jet lag, con calls at weird
hours, or both.
Or none ... there is simple solution like meeting recording, but for
some reason IETF
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc
Petit-Huguenin
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 9:51 AM
To: Melinda Shore
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
In all honesty I'd say
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher
...
I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber
scribe (which makes it sound as if the hapless volunteer
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher
...
I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't
John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
... I also am very familiar with the fact that getting work done
on lists can be a real challenge: People get sidetracked and can
take days, weeks, or even months
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher
...
I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs:
On Oct 24, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher
...
I have a concrete suggestion for WG chairs: don't ask for a Jabber
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.comwrote:
On Oct 24, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room
On 10/24/11 05:49 , Thomas Nadeau wrote:
On Oct 24, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is
working, that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher
...
I have a concrete
Cheaper, yes. Easier?
Sure, a 5-hour flight to Paris sure beats a 12-hour flight to New York
plus a 4 hour flight to
Minneapolis, but you end up in Paris, and if the conference hotel is
too expensive for your
corporate budget (it usually is for mine),
On 10/24/2011 2:49 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
I find the jabber feed to be relatively useless at meetings for this purpose as
the chairs do not always notice questions.
This goes back to the question of methodology for chairing group activities,
whether f2f or on a mailing list.
In
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
I find the jabber feed to be relatively useless at meetings for
this purpose as the chairs do not always notice questions.
Dave This goes back to the question of methodology for chairing group
activities,
Dave whether f2f or on
On 10/24/11 6:44 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/24/2011 4:09 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher
...
I have a
.
Spencer
- Original Message -
From: Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
To: ke...@kismith.co.uk
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
On 10/24/11 6:44 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Dave
On 10/24/11 10:36 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be
continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had the chance to
correct things I wasn't getting right, but the volume of my notes
swamped the ability of anyone else to
We've come a long way.
That would make sense to me.
Spencer
It was obvious to me at that time (but I was wrong) that I should be
continuing to take notes in the jabber room, so people had the chance to
correct things I wasn't getting right, but the volume of my notes
swamped the ability of
I've used it for various meetings (e.g., W3C/IETF coordination calls)
and it's super. I've suggested to the tools team that they look into
installing an instance.
On 10/24/11 10:56 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
We've come a long way.
That would make sense to me.
Spencer
It was obvious to
At 05:52 24-10-2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
As jabber scribe, I view part of my responsibility as relaying
questions asked on jabber (if no one else is doing so). For groups
that have secretaries, I suggest that that be part of the
secretary's responsibilities.
The secretary is busy taking
At 05:52 24-10-2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
As jabber scribe, I view part of my responsibility as relaying questions
asked on jabber (if no one else is doing so). For groups that have
secretaries, I suggest that that be part of the secretary's responsibilities.
The secretary is busy
sm == sm s...@resistor.net writes:
sm If you do not go to meetings, it's unlikely that you will be able to
follow
sm the BoF you are interested in. There may be times when decisions are
taken
sm during a meeting. It is not worth the nit-picking if the outcome won't
sm
On 10/24/2011 10:17 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
The biggest challenge is however that we are seeing a massive increase
in Bar-BOFs... it's one thing if 5 people get together to figure out a
problem statement, it's another when it's announced...
Yes! As a process matter I'd be happy to see
: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
At 05:52 24-10-2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
As jabber scribe, I view part of my responsibility as relaying questions
asked on jabber (if no one else is doing so). For groups that have
secretaries, I suggest that that be part of the secretary's
It gets worse. To attend every IETF meeting costs about $10,000 per year. If
we say one has to go to the face-to-face meetings, we limit the IETF to
participants from corporations or entities that will sponsor the individual
(pay to play?), IETF participants that have independent funds, or
In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and
Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking
etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei (in Winter) and Paris (in
Spring). This is more like a vacation package than a get-together for
engineers to
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave
CROCKER
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:27 PM
To: Melinda Shore
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Requirement to go to meetings (was: Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF
community input)
So
For me, the plan outlined below changes the cost of the travel from:
Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200, and Short @ $400 = $3,600
to:
Short @ $400, Short @ $400, Medium @ $1,200 = $2,000
HOWEVER, if I lived in Asia, the plan proposed below changes my costs from
$3,600 to
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's increasingly the case that if you
want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have
considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 14:06 + Eric Burger
ebur...@standardstrack.com wrote:
For me, the plan outlined below changes the cost of the travel
from: Long @ $2,000, Medium @ $1,200, and Short @ $400 =
$3,600 to:
Short @ $400, Short @ $400, Medium @ $1,200 = $2,000
--On Sunday, October 23, 2011 07:05 -0700 Murray S. Kucherawy
m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
...
Tough call. I completely understand the need and desire to be
productive without requiring meetings, for all the financial,
participation, and other reasons given. But I also am very
familiar with
On 10/23/2011 4:07 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I have been involved in the IETF for 15 years now. From my first meeting, it was
apparent to me that
if you want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings.
I wonder if in realty it has ever been different.
Yes, there has always been a
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:46, Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Yes, there has always been a tension about the proper balance between
list-based and f2f-based work. In recent years -- especially as we've had a
greater proportion of people used to doing work /only/ in f2f -- we seem to
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists?
In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is
working group chairs, both for using meetings as deadline anchors
and for doing a really crappy job managing
, October 23, 2011 3:13 PM
To: Eric Burger
Cc: IETF list discussion
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague and
Quebec City to meet most who live within a few hours (air, car, walking
etc.) from me. The next two will be in Taipei
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/23/2011 09:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists?
In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is
working group
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.orgwrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/23/2011 09:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing
lists?
On Oct 23, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:26 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
So the question is how to move the center of gravity back to mailing lists?
In all honesty I'd say that the largest source of this problem is
working group chairs, both for using meetings as
I'm not sure I'd blame chairs so much, but anyway...
Here's a suggestion - create a list for people who are active
IETF participants but who miss a lot of meetings. (And ask people
who don't match that profile, like me, to stay out of the
discussion - we can read the archive if we're curious.)
The problem is that many of the things that make a meeting better for remote
people, make it worse for local people. You can see that even in IETF meetings
today - the virtual interim meetings were everyone is remote is a much better
experience for remote people than meetings where lots of
to Europe….:-(
*From:*ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf
Of *ext Ping Pan
*Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:13 PM
*To:* Eric Burger
*Cc:* IETF list discussion
*Subject:* Re: Requirement to go to meetings
In the past three IETF meetings, I have traveled to Beijing, Prague
and easier to go to Europe:-(
*From:*ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf
Of *ext Ping Pan
*Sent:* Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:13 PM
*To:* Eric Burger
*Cc:* IETF list discussion
*Subject:* Re: Requirement to go to meetings
In the past three IETF meetings, I have
Sure - there are other trade-offs, no doubt. But I think
every time this topic has come up, the discussion is dominated
by people that do attend meetings, and I'd be interested in
what might come out if we tried that discussion just amongst
non-attending active participants.
If enough of 'em
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence,
there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be net-based.
randy
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so
hence, there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be
net-based.
to make my troll more explicit (under an nsfw bridge?)
o how does a 'town hall' of O(10^3) participants work socially?
o how will/should incremental
On 10/23/11 8:59 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Can you give an example of chairs that do it well and what is
it they do? Then perhaps contrast with what it is that chairs
that do it poorly are doing. Feel free to use me as an example
of a chair that does it poorly - I have no idea how to do it
Randy,
I might be old-fashioned, but I think the net will give us more tools
that can be used together with what we already have, not (necessarily)
replace them
/Loa
On 2011-10-23 10:47, Randy Bush wrote:
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence,
there will be no
Loa,
It seems to me this is not a tools question. This is kind of social challenge.
M
Sent from my iPad
On 23. 10. 2011, at 20:13, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote:
Randy,
I might be old-fashioned, but I think the net will give us more tools
that can be used together with what we already
On Oct 23, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/23/11 8:59 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Can you give an example of chairs that do it well and what is
it they do? Then perhaps contrast with what it is that chairs
that do it poorly are doing. Feel free to use me as an example
of
On 23 Oct 2011, at 18:28, Loa Andersson wrote:
Nurit,
I'm in the same situation, but part of the argument is right.
If we do one North America, one Europe and one Asian meeting
per year; places like Minneapolis and Phoenix is cheaper regardless
where you come from. That is if you
2/3rds of the IETF meetings in the USA would exacerbate visa problems
for many attendees. I don't mind some amount of regularity in meeting
site, like Minneapolis, or going where it's inexpensive (by the way,
the Boston area is really cheap in the winter) but I think you need
more variety than
discount
For whom?
For me it is much cheaper and easier to go to Europe….:-(
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.orgmailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ping Pan
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 3:13 PM
To: Eric Burger
Cc: IETF list discussion
Subject: Re: Requirement
Dave == Dave CROCKER d...@dcrocker.net writes:
Dave On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's increasingly the case that if you want to do work at the
IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have considerable
reservations about asking for the kind of money you're
Jennings flu...@cisco.com
Cc: IETF Disgust ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence,
there will be no physical meetings, [almost] all will be net-based.
randy
___
Ietf
On 10/22/11 23:26 , Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/21/2011 7:58 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's increasingly the case that if you
want to do work at the IETF, you need to go to meetings. I'd have
considerable reservations about asking for the kind of money you're
suggesting.
Melinda,
Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 12:47 PM
To: Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com
Cc: IETF Disgust ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Requirement to go to meetings
perhaps we could model using the assumption that, a decade or so hence,
there will be no physical meetings, [almost
On 10/23/11 12:02 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
It's really not that big a deal. Make sure that audio is working,
that there's a Jabber scribe/Jabber room watcher and liaison-y sort
of person, and that remote participants are pinged regularly (and
*always* before a change of topic).
I have a
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Scott Brim wrote:
Some people find it difficult to participate at a rapid pace on
mailing lists, and will strongly prefer f2f. They might also find it
difficult to participate f2f but they can control the pace more.
I've been a fairly passive meeting participant in IETF
i live in tokyo and participate in three or more continent (NA, Euro,
Asia) calls a number of times a week. i am currently one quarter of the
way through an eight week four continent rtw (with south africa after
taipei). and it ain't my first this year. boo hoo.
get real here. we want global
96 matches
Mail list logo
