Re: Getting rid of the dot
I agree with Brian. IETF has no king. If the badge said that somebody is a chair, it may imply that there has a "king". dot is better ! Jiankang Yao - Original Message - From: "Brian E Carpenter" To: "Carsten Bormann" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:05 PM Subject: Re: Getting rid of the dot > On 18/03/2013 22:10, 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. > > I can only speak for myself, but I find badges hard enough to take > in at a glance even with the current amount of dot clutter. I don't > think that adding more detail is wise, and I think the notion that > "dot = knows what's going on" is simple and useful, even without > decoding the colour. > > Heresy: I'm *not* convinced that putting labels on newcomers is such > a good idea, because it has exactly the opposite implication to a dot > of any colour. > > Brian
Re: Getting rid of the dot
On 19 Mar 2013 22:47, "Ole Jacobsen" wrote: > I can just see the list of MUST, SHOULD and MAY have attributes, Tsk. RFC 2119 only applies to interoperability requirements, as you well know. So unless we're also swapping t-shirts...
RE: Getting rid of the dot
There's always some excuse as to why multi-homing is never done properly. On 03/19/13 20:38, Michael Richardson allegedly wrote: > Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always > backwards. It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners.
Re: Getting rid of the dot
On 3/19/13 4:19 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > I want my badge on a shiny embossed metal plate with the words > "protocol police" on it. Where do I have to apply? If memory serves, HP offered such a badge as Interop "schwag" in the late '80s. Another old timer, Erik Fair, actually kept his for a few years and then wrote a little ditty for RISKS about an email failure due to mishandling of SMTP. Protocol police indeed! Eliot [1] http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.66.html#subj2
Re: Getting rid of the dot
Oh, please, not an T-shirt designed by an IETF working group! I can just see the list of MUST, SHOULD and MAY have attributes, and how large is large anyway? Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj Skype: organdemo On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, John Levine wrote: > > If our t-shirts had pockets, it wouldn't be a problem. > >
Re: Getting rid of the dot
In article <5148d415.1000...@internet2.edu> you write: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA1 > >On 03/19/13 20:38, Michael Richardson allegedly wrote: >> Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always >> backwards. > >It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners. If our t-shirts had pockets, it wouldn't be a problem.
Re: Getting rid of the dot
On 3/19/2013 4:09 PM, Scott Brim wrote: It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners. Why am I encouraged every time I come across a problem that can be solved with duct tape? :-) Spencer
Re: Getting rid of the dot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/19/13 20:38, Michael Richardson allegedly wrote: > Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always > backwards. It costs a lot more to get lanyards that attach at two corners. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlFI1BUACgkQF0TR2hENFAQG7ACgmGyLorT15cEziNd+mOQ7XezS j/EAnjzb1tUGLhyzyAGw/HOzP/nslurd =PgQt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Getting rid of the dot
On 03/19/13 19:50, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote: > 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. At Cocoa Beach we had 12 Milo Medins. He wore Tracey's badge, at least for a while.
Re: Getting rid of the dot
> >Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always backwards. While I can't claim that it is 'always' backwards - perhaps a simple(?) solution is to print the identifying information (whatever is decided) on both sides? [Wait - does that double the number of dots :)? Hmmm...] - S
Re: Getting rid of the dot
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013, Michael Richardson wrote: > Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always backwards. This *is* solvable. We've been using double-sided badges at APRICOT for years, they look the same flipped or flopped. Of course this would require (gasp) two sets of dots, I am not sure we have the budget for that, oh, wait we're getting rid of the dots? ;-) Ole
Re: Getting rid of the dot
> "Doug" == Doug Barton writes: >> In article <51489888.6050...@internet2.edu> you write: >>> I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I >>> just came from. >> >> I want the screen to show the room I'm going to next. And it should >> be upside down so I can read it. Doug> And a map so I can get there. With GPS. And real-time traffic data. *AND* a count-down until cookies, and a Blood-Glucose indicator, so I know if I'm allowed to have a cookie. Actually, I'd just settle for a badge that wasn't always backwards. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works pgpJPNYg1dNI1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Getting rid of the dot
On 03/19/2013 11:48 AM, John Levine wrote: In article <51489888.6050...@internet2.edu> you write: I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I just came from. I want the screen to show the room I'm going to next. And it should be upside down so I can read it. And a map so I can get there. With GPS. And real-time traffic data.
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
In article <51489888.6050...@internet2.edu> you write: >I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I >just came from. I want the screen to show the room I'm going to next. And it should be upside down so I can read it.
Re: Getting rid of the dot
I want my badge to have my name and a small screen showing the room I just came from.
Re: Getting rid of the dot
On 19/03/13 17:19, 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? +1. in the same application queue :) Aaron Grüße, Carsten
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
On 18/03/2013 22:10, 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. I can only speak for myself, but I find badges hard enough to take in at a glance even with the current amount of dot clutter. I don't think that adding more detail is wise, and I think the notion that "dot = knows what's going on" is simple and useful, even without decoding the colour. Heresy: I'm *not* convinced that putting labels on newcomers is such a good idea, because it has exactly the opposite implication to a dot of any colour. Brian
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
On 3/18/2013 5:04 PM, SM wrote: 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? :-) Hi, SM, Not me, even when I don't recognize half the names of voting members, because I "identify NomCom members" by sending a request for an interview slot (and I'm remembering that these are 30 minutes long), so everyone in the room when I arrive is a NomCom member ;-) That's OK for people who can provide input on lots of people - I do - but doesn't scale for people who just want to provide input on a couple of people they've worked with, who are willing nominees for a NomCom-selected position. Grabbing someone who has to listen because they're chewing a cookie can be enough, sometimes! Spencer
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
