I suggest the starting point is a webpage with a link to the slides
being presented and a simple audio stream.
two way, please. i am amazed that ietf had two-way back when it was the
mbone. with multicast actually deployed, now it is one-way.
randy
On 08/02/2012 12:18, David Chisnall wrote:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply,
You too ... I let some time go by to see what others had to say. I think
it's disappointing that more people aren't concerned about this issue.
On 2 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Doug Barton wrote:
However, my point is
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The Watson/Losh connection worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
Yep. In 18+ years of being subscribed to various freebsd
lists, Arnaud has the honor of being only the 2nd person
to earn a killfile entry. He's now sitting next to Jesus
Monroy, Jr.
it is not a proud from you to talk about who you are blocking.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
needlessly contrary and confrontational.
Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
On 2 Aug 2012, at 05:30, Doug Barton wrote:
I used to ask the PTB to provide *some* form of remote participation for
even a fraction of the events at the dev summit. I don't bother asking
anymore because year after year my requests were met with any of:
indifference, hostility, shrugged
On 08/02/2012 09:20, Scott Long wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com
wrote:
Doug makes some good points.
No, he doesn't.
Yes I do! (So there)
He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory
where none of that is warranted.
I used to run the
On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com wrote:
Doug makes some good points.
No, he doesn't. He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory where none
of that is warranted.
I used to run the devsummits, and we did tele-conference lines for remote
people to
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Scott Long wrote:
On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman kob6...@gmail.com wrote:
Doug makes some good points.
No, he doesn't. He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory where none
of that is warranted.
I used to run the devsummits, and we did
On 08/02/2012 05:54, David Chisnall wrote:
On 2 Aug 2012, at 05:30, Doug Barton wrote:
I used to ask the PTB to provide *some* form of remote
participation for even a fraction of the events at the dev summit.
I don't bother asking anymore because year after year my requests
were met with
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The Watson/Losh connection worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for
the right people, even though I was told
On 2 Aug 2012, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
Well that's a start. :) And where was this availability announced? If I
missed it, that's on me. But providing remote access that you don't tell
people about isn't really any better than not providing it at all.
It's not widely advertised, because
On 08/02/2012 10:13, David Chisnall wrote:
On 2 Aug 2012, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
Well that's a start. :) And where was this availability announced?
If I missed it, that's on me. But providing remote access that you
don't tell people about isn't really any better than not providing
it
BTW, for those who'd like to get a flavor of what the IETF model looks
like, the Vancouver meeting is in process now:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.html
Feel free to join in as a lurker.
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something.
On 08/02/2012 10:34, Doug Barton wrote:
BTW, for those who'd like to get a flavor of what the IETF model looks
like, the Vancouver meeting is in process now:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.html
Feel free to join in as a lurker.
Sorry, this agenda makes it easier to see the
On 2 Aug 2012, at 18:28, Doug Barton wrote:
Welcome to the 21st Century. :) There are widely available audio and
video conferencing solutions that easily scale into the thousands of
users, at minimal cost.
Yes, It takes effort. I get that. I've been part of the effort to
provide remote
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
Those all sound like nice steps forward, thank you for pointing them
out. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong in this area.
What would be nice I think would be if these steps were formalized, and
shared more openly. Having
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:46:42AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
but there is
certainly no active attempt to exclude people who can't attend.
... and here is where I need to push back. No active attempt to exclude
people is not the same thing as actively encouraging remote
participation. It's
On Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:30:16 am Doug Barton wrote:
On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
needlessly contrary and confrontational.
Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
On 08/02/2012 10:37, David Chisnall wrote:
Thank you for volunteering to organise this. It's good to see people with
both the motivation and experience required to do something well actively
contributing to the project.
Cheap copout. And quite sad, especially coming from a newly elected
On 08/02/2012 10:40, Warner Losh wrote:
One thing to remember about the IETF. There's many vendors that devote
significant resources to the IETF. While I was at Cisco, for example, I know
that we provided audio and video bridges to IEFT meetings to facilitate
remote attendance at the
On 08/02/2012 05:39, John Baldwin wrote:
I find this a bit ironic from you given that I've met you in person at
USENIX ATC which is an order of magnitude more expensive than BSDCan (and
in fact, one of the reasons the US-based BSDCon died and was effectively
supplanted by BSDCan was that
On 2 Aug 2012, at 18:47, Doug Barton wrote:
Cheap copout. And quite sad, especially coming from a newly elected core
team member.
FreeBSD is a volunteer project. Our DevSummits are not run by a commercial
organisation, they are run by volunteers. I am not being paid to organise the
On 08/02/2012 11:12, David Chisnall wrote:
FreeBSD is a volunteer project.
Yeah, I get that. I've been around quite a bit longer than you have, in
case you didn't notice. :)
I understand what you're saying, it's going to take work to change this
mindset, and to provide these resources. If you
Thank you for your thoughtful reply,
On 2 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Doug Barton wrote:
However, my point is that in spite of the fact that it's non-trivial,
the mindset on this topic needs to change if the dev summits are going
to continue to be significant focii of both work being done and
On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The Watson/Losh connection worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The Watson/Losh connection worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
You don't want to work cooperatively.
Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
internal, private, committers-and-invite-only-restricted meeting at
BSDCan ?
Why is it that so much review and
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
You don't want to work cooperatively.
Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
internal, private,
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
You don't want to work cooperatively.
Why is it that mbuf's
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org
wrote:
You don't
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue,
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:45:35 -0400
From: Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com
One obvious problem in FreeBSD is that committers are prosecutor,
judge and jury altogether.
As a user, I accept this.
I think if you can make a meaningful
contribution to FreeBSD
Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
recent developer summit weren't @freebsd.org committers - we had
plenty of representation from companies using FreeBSD.
If you want to participate, just ask a
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
[ trimm ]
You are forgetting one specific detail: you can always review a work
*after* it entered the tree. This is something you would never do, but
sometimes,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
recent developer summit weren't @freebsd.org committers - we had
plenty of
On 8/1/12 12:45 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
As for the mbuf meeting, all I can find from it online is:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2012-June/012629.html
actually nothing has happenned on this yet
On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
recent developer summit
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
recent
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
added to the developer
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:28 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
Any interested party is very welcome
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:36:26PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you
are being needlessly contrary and confrontational.
Yep. In 18+ years of being subscribed to various freebsd
lists, Arnaud has the honor of being only the 2nd person
to
On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
needlessly contrary and confrontational.
Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
objectively, he's right. If anyone can attend the meeting by simply
getting
45 matches
Mail list logo
