Re: [IETF] Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)
On Mar 19, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Mar 19, 2013, at 13:22, Michael Richardson wrote: > >> Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get >> an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting. > > I want my badge on a shiny embossed metal plate with the words "protocol > police" on it. > Where do I have to apply? Will increase your meeting fee by ~$45, but here you go… http://www.visualbadge.com/BuildBadge_ViewPic2.aspx?badge=FB46&base=silver&textfont=block&textcolor=black&text1=I.E.T.F&text2=PROTOCOL&text3=&text4=POLICE&text5=BCP38&text6=&seal=C998M&textsep=NONE&aff=A128&back=&finish=NICKEL+ELECTROPLATE&qtyb=1&etype=SOFT+(REGULAR)&att=BADGE+ONLY+(PIN+BACK)&sh=CURVED&specins=&price=39.50&l=&pricel=&qtyl=0&textsep=NONE&bsize=Dimensions+(w+x+h)%3a+1.25''+X+1.75''&limpr=-LEAVE+BLANK-¢ertype=MULTI+COLOR W > > Grüße, Carsten > -- "Go on, prove me wrong. Destroy the fabric of the universe. See if I care." -- Terry Prachett
Re: Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)
At 10:08 AM 3/19/2013, Jeffrey Haas wrote: >On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:22:46AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >> > "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Haas writes: >> Jeffrey> Such an exercise would probably generate a lot less >> Jeffrey> controversy than my unsanctioned badge experiment. >> >> Jeffrey> http://pfrc.org/~jhaas/pictures/badge.jpg >> >> nice. >> Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get >> an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting. > >I didn't realize more people hadn't seen the badge. Since I've gotten a few >inquiries about it, here's the comments I'd had: > >- Some people were upset that I was wearing an unofficial badge. None of > these were the people involved in giving them out. (My official badge was > in my laptop bag just in case.) There's a long history of "martian" badges at the IETF. During the Stanford IETF many many years ago, there were something like a dozen "Milo Medin" badges (and I seem to remember at one point Milo was wearing none of them), as well as badges where the older IETF logo had been replaced with various of the Klingon, Federation and Romulan symbols from Star Trek. >- The company logo was definitely too big. I got the badge the morning > before I headed out for the conference and it was a bit late to ask Chris > to alter the design the minimize it. My preference would have been a bigger > IETF logo and smaller company logo. (Or "type treatment" as he'll tell > me.) Adding text to the blue dot would have been nice but wasn't thought > about after the fact. >- The biggest concern expressed by those seeing it was that how could one > tell that I've actually paid for the conference? As was pointed out by > multiple parties, a piece of paper isn't exactly good security if we > actually cared about that. :-) To the best of my knowledge, Beijing was the only IETF meeting that ever had anyone checking badges. And for the most part, the people who attend, pay. And if they don't (due to say financial reversals) but still contribute, I'm ok with that. >- Biggest comment from the people dispensing badges was that it's their job > to give out the dots. Since the dot, while removable by design, is part > of the badge this is somewhat problematic. >- Other comments are that the lanyards are far more of a validation that > you've been to registration than the piece of paper. >- This badge was apparently responsible for eating an hour of discussion > during an I* telechat. :-) > >The badge is acrylic produced on a laser cutter with custom cut-out vinyl. >A big goal of the badge was to have something where the name was >significantly easier to view from a distance. However, I have a short name. > >I had approached some people in ISOC about the possibility of permanent >badges as a fund raiser during the bits and bytes. I haven't really >followed up on it yet. > >-- Jeff
Re: Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)
On Mar 19, 2013, at 13:22, Michael Richardson wrote: > Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get > an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting. I want my badge on a shiny embossed metal plate with the words "protocol police" on it. Where do I have to apply? Grüße, Carsten
Re: Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:22:46AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Haas writes: > Jeffrey> Such an exercise would probably generate a lot less > Jeffrey> controversy than my unsanctioned badge experiment. > > Jeffrey> http://pfrc.org/~jhaas/pictures/badge.jpg > > nice. > Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get > an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting. I didn't realize more people hadn't seen the badge. Since I've gotten a few inquiries about it, here's the comments I'd had: - Some people were upset that I was wearing an unofficial badge. None of these were the people involved in giving them out. (My official badge was in my laptop bag just in case.) - The company logo was definitely too big. I got the badge the morning before I headed out for the conference and it was a bit late to ask Chris to alter the design the minimize it. My preference would have been a bigger IETF logo and smaller company logo. (Or "type treatment" as he'll tell me.) Adding text to the blue dot would have been nice but wasn't thought about after the fact. - The biggest concern expressed by those seeing it was that how could one tell that I've actually paid for the conference? As was pointed out by multiple parties, a piece of paper isn't exactly good security if we actually cared about that. :-) - Biggest comment from the people dispensing badges was that it's their job to give out the dots. Since the dot, while removable by design, is part of the badge this is somewhat problematic. - Other comments are that the lanyards are far more of a validation that you've been to registration than the piece of paper. - This badge was apparently responsible for eating an hour of discussion during an I* telechat. :-) The badge is acrylic produced on a laser cutter with custom cut-out vinyl. A big goal of the badge was to have something where the name was significantly easier to view from a distance. However, I have a short name. I had approached some people in ISOC about the possibility of permanent badges as a fund raiser during the bits and bytes. I haven't really followed up on it yet. -- Jeff
Re: Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)
> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Haas writes: Jeffrey> Such an exercise would probably generate a lot less Jeffrey> controversy than my unsanctioned badge experiment. Jeffrey> http://pfrc.org/~jhaas/pictures/badge.jpg nice. Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:10:14PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote: > I wouldn't mind replacing my blue dot with an indication *what* WG I chair, > and in which area that is. > > Might be a bit more logistics when chairs change, but nothing that can't be > solved with a DYMO labelmaker. Since I live with a graphic designer, I occasionally think about arranging for some stickers that convey what areas one follows. I suspect dinner conversation at some point will involve trying to figure out appropriate icons for the different areas. Routing is the only immediately obvious one to me. INT, TSV, OPS and APP may simply suffer from my poor imagination with some sort of ROYGBIV style 7-layer stack with those groups indicated by their appropriate place in the hierarchy. (Although OPS may object to my "layer 6" thinking. :-) Such an exercise would probably generate a lot less controversy than my unsanctioned badge experiment. http://pfrc.org/~jhaas/pictures/badge.jpg -- Jeff
Re: Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)
I wouldn't mind replacing my blue dot with an indication *what* WG I chair, and in which area that is. Might be a bit more logistics when chairs change, but nothing that can't be solved with a DYMO labelmaker. Grüße, Carsten
Getting rid of the dot (was: Mentoring)
Hi Spencer, At 13:49 18-03-2013, Spencer Dawkins wrote: There are dots, and then there are dots. The one I'd like to see continued the most is the orange dot, for Nomcom members. We choose the voting members at random out of a volunteer pool, with some qualifications but not a lot, for a specific duration. Perhaps there's value in helping the community identify Nomcom members quickly during breaks, etc. Did you need to look for the NomCom dot to identify NomCom members? :-) If the IAOC continues to hold open sessions at future IETF meetings, that's good; if not, perhaps there's value in helping the community identify IAOC members quickly, too. If the community cannot identify these IAOC members quickly it can only mean that these members are unknown or known to a selected few who have been attending meetings since several years. attendees lists and meeting wikis, and a larger and more visible secretariat, green dots may have more value as recognition for meeting sponsors (and if giving out green dots matters to people who support the IETF financially, that's certainly sufficient as a reason to keep them!). Yes. Just keep thinking carefully, as people are doing, and developing a better understanding about what we are doing and why it might have been our practice in the past ... and whether it's still a good idea now. Agreed. Regards, -sm
