HI,
the recordings are on-line again. Please contact t...@meetecho.com should you
experience further issues.
Thanks,
Simon
Il giorno 03/mar/2013, alle ore 18:09, Simon Leinen ha scritto:
Simon Pietro Romano writes:
we're actually moving the (Meetecho-operated) recordings server to a
Randy Bush writes:
so your criteria acctually open and continual availability, and
availability of export. i think these would apply well to ietf or
whatever services as well.
Right. As a data point, I haven't been able to access the archived
Meetecho streams from past IETF meetings lately,
Hi Simon,
we're actually moving the (Meetecho-operated) recordings server to a different
datacenter. It will be up and running tomorrow morning.
Sorry about this inconvenience,
Simon
Simon Leinen simon.lei...@switch.ch ha scritto:
Randy Bush writes:
so your criteria acctually open and
Simon Pietro Romano writes:
we're actually moving the (Meetecho-operated) recordings server to a
different datacenter. It will be up and running tomorrow morning.
That's good to hear! Thanks for the quick update, and all the best for
the move.
--
Simon.
Sorry about this inconvenience,
What about possibly 'open' social networks? I remember Quora intended to
become something like that. What about something the whateverOverflow
sites (StackOverflow, etc). IMO they are some of the best managed
technical 'social' sites out there, they do a great job.
I can easily imagine a
Young people like myself may use other networks to communicate, but
we also mistrust them. There is something virtuous about the IETF
stance that is appealing and helpful to its brand (and made signing
up for this listserve more attractive). I am wary of diluting that
brand by putting the
Fred,
On 25/02/2013 07:05, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps.
Let's embrace new tools to collaborate.
Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on
servers run by the IETF or a contractor payed by the IETF
is fine. Using collaboration
Fred,
I am not convinced that social nets (proprietary or not) are yet a good
tool to do IETF work. They are good to communicate one-way and some
informal two-ways, but that's all (at least for now)
What I had in mind was something very simple such that the IETF chair
could do is
On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/24/2013 11:02 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 25/02/13 07:56, Arturo Servin wrote:
If it were to collaborate, an ietf application with open standards should
be the way forward.
Hi Brian,
Exactly. The inter-personal communication toolset we use in the
IETF is quite limited because of some unwritten constraints,
which certainly include:
- very widely available, including free or open source solutions
- operating-system independent
- standardised, non-proprietary
Hi Simon,
On 25/02/2013 11:15, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:
Hi Brian,
Exactly. The inter-personal communication toolset we use in the
IETF is quite limited because of some unwritten constraints,
which certainly include:
- very widely available, including free or open source solutions
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/25/2013 03:11 AM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:10 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
On 02/24/2013 11:02 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 25/02/13 07:56, Arturo Servin wrote:
If it were to collaborate, an ietf application with
On 2/25/13, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote:
Fred,
I am not convinced that social nets (proprietary or not) are yet a good
tool to do IETF work. They are good to communicate one-way and some
informal two-ways, but that's all (at least for now)
What I had in mind was
From: Brian Trammell tramm...@tik.ee.ethz.ch
It does not seem appropriate for a technical standards organization
dedicated to making the Internet work better through the development
of open standards to implicitly endorse communication protocols
which are based on closed access to
Thanks everyone for the feedback, on and off list.
We did the blog primarily as a means to convey more thoughts and encourage
discussion. That's the content part. We'll see later how that works out.
The medium part is orthogonal, but interesting. For this stage we thought
that an IETF-server
Hi Simon,
At 03:15 25-02-2013, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:
Just out of curiosity, can you list which of the above requirements
is not met by Meetecho?
Meetecho is a vendor. In my humble opinion the IETF standardizes
on protocols; it does not standardize on vendors. I can still
access the
Hi Brian,
It's proprietary, isn't it? The pop-ups on the the web site don't seem to
work for me, but I can see a Buy button. (I realise that usage for the IETF
is free, and I have no complaints.)
As you say, usage for the IETF is free, like our software ('free as in
freedom'...).
The Buy
On Feb 25, 2013, at 17:33, jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
A tools-login required for posting comments?
In a ~ 20-year IETFer, it evokes a bit of a smirk to see the IETF now starting
to define its social media strategy...
The answer to the question depends on whether you want to engage IETFers
Its not really orthogonal if you are seeking a feature list. Will it be
out-sourced, open source or in-house developed?
That's the dilemma with most older establishments that do not wish to provide less
support for its long time customers but need to also migrate and provide
other methods as
For me the most important point is that it is managed on IETF (or
IETF's contractor) servers.
as no private data are involved, i am curious why?
randy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/25/2013 03:00 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
For me the most important point is that it is managed on IETF (or IETF's
contractor) servers.
as no private data are involved, i am curious why?
Because public does not mean unlimited availability.
For me the most important point is that it is managed on IETF (or IETF's
contractor) servers.
as no private data are involved, i am curious why?
Because public does not mean unlimited availability. Let's say that
the IETF decides to use a collaboration tool hosted by a service run
by an
It appears that the path that this discussion has followed has proven
your point.
/as
On 25/02/2013 23:31, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
On 2/25/13, Arturo Servin aser...@lacnic.net wrote:
Fred,
I am not convinced that social nets (proprietary or not) are yet a good
tool to do IETF
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/23/2013 07:38 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Very good initiative.
Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new
tools to collaborate.
Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by the
Why not?
I, my organization and many more (included ISOC) have found them very useful
for outreach activities. I do not see why the IETF shouldn't. Please, tell me.
as
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Feb 2013, at 02:21, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
Hi, Arturo, all,
It does not seem appropriate for a technical standards organization dedicated
to making the Internet work better through the development of open standards to
implicitly endorse communication protocols which are based on closed access
to distributed databases through interfaces
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/24/2013 05:21 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Why not?
I, my organization and many more (included ISOC) have found them very
useful for outreach activities. I do not see why the IETF shouldn't.
Please, tell me.
You said collaborate below,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Yes, I correct, I meant to outreach and not collaborate.
If it were to collaborate, an ietf application with open standards
should be the way forward.
For outreach my opinion is that does not matter.
Regards,
as
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I meant outreach, not collaborate.
In the case of collaboration I agree with you. Although today we use
webex that does not seem to open to me (at least not more than FB,
Google+ and twitter).
In the case of outreach it
On 25/02/13 07:56, Arturo Servin wrote:
If it were to collaborate, an ietf application with open standards
should be the way forward.
Moreover, entities controlling these social platforms are, presumably,
also participating in IETF. So, using these tools would give one party
unfair
Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace new
tools to collaborate.
Let's not. Collaboration based on software running on servers run by the IETF
or a contractor payed by the IETF is fine. Using collaboration tools owned by
the entities you listed, or similar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/24/2013 11:02 PM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 25/02/13 07:56, Arturo Servin wrote:
If it were to collaborate, an ietf application with open standards should
be the way forward.
Moreover, entities controlling these social platforms are,
Very good initiative.
Twitter, Google+, Facebook, etc. could be the next steps. Let's embrace
new tools to collaborate.
Regards,
as
On 22/02/2013 20:35, IETF Chair wrote:
Jari has created a blog as an experiment to see if would be possible to
provide periodic status reports
Jari has created a blog as an experiment to see if would be possible to
provide periodic status reports and other thoughts from the chair. Here's
the link:
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/02/chairs-blog/
+1
I saw a small mission statement in this post, good start. Perhaps an
official mission statement for the new incoming chair. Take it slow.
Don't need to see a blog of the day!
On 2/22/2013 7:35 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
Jari has created a blog as an experiment to see if would be possible
I agree with this initiative.
Alejandro,
On 2/22/13, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
Jari has created a blog as an experiment to see if would be possible to
provide periodic status reports and other thoughts from the chair. Here's
the link:
http://www.ietf.org/blog/2013/02/chairs-blog/
I love the transparency as well !
Thank you !!
Dora Maria
Sent from my mobile
On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Alejandro Acosta alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree with this initiative.
Alejandro,
On 2/22/13, IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org wrote:
Jari has created a blog as an
37 matches
Mail list logo
