Dave,
I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more interesting
this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's worth pressing on
several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate such folk better, as well
as be clear about when and where and how
At 22:25 28-07-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more
interesting this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's
worth pressing on several fronts, to see how we can both accommodate
such folk better, as well as be clear about when
, 2013 6:00 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen
Subject: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87 Audio
Streaming Info)
In article 8ba59f96-a1de-460f-9a22-f2cd4ce5f...@emc.com you write:
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could provide short
From: John Levine [jo...@taugh.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 6:00 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen
Subject: Re: Remote participants, newcomers, and tutorials (was: IETF87
Audio Streaming Info)
In article 8ba59f96-a1de-460f-9a22-f2cd4ce5f...@emc.com you
for education. And I agree that we
should not become an organisation where the f2f time gets the primary
role.
However. Newcomers are not all alike. The student coming here to
observe the IETF. The researcher who understands the field we are
embarking on. The colleague that has been implementing
On Jul 29, 2013, at 3:59 PM, t.p. wrote:
I think the points you make below are good, once the newcomer to the
IETF has found their working group. This is not always easy. Fine if
your interest is in OSPF, ISIS, TLS, TCPMaintenance but in other
spheres, the IETF approach of choosing a
acronyms. Whether we move in that direction or not, most
newcomers and isolated/remote participants are going to find it
easier to identify an Area of interest than a specific WG. A
well-written Area Report that includes brief descriptions of the
main focus of each WG along with current status
and acronyms. I agree
that it would probably help to be more descriptive about WG
names rather than looking for things that will make cute
acronyms. Whether we move in that direction or not, most
newcomers and isolated/remote participants are going to find it
easier to identify an Area of interest
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:23 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk
wrote:
I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
something closer to conferences,
with poster sessions!
And mandatory suit and tie (or women's equivalent business attire) for
presenters and chairs.
On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
projectors and screens.
Then I guess it's time for my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
yup. i guess it is time for my
On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:47 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:10 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Keith
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
putting up yuotube/vimeo tutorials on the wg's technical space would be
a good thing for folk with spare time to do. i am sure we could arrange
pointer space on the wg's web page.
Effective video presentations are _hard_.
On Jul 28, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/28/2013 09:47 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
As an off-topic note, thanks to Alexa, Alexey, Jari, Lorenzo and the
Meetecho team.
At 16:52 27-07-2013, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
What do you mean by conference? too much information inferred in
your term that may confuse others on the list. Will appreciate, if
you can share bit more on it,
to
the original question of how to bring newcomers in through
remote participation - I would start with the assumption that
they'd be participating, remotely or otherwise, because they
have some networking problem (and possibly solution) that needs
standardization. I'd also assume that they've done
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
nroff still works fine for me. It's already there in Mac OS X.
Only the topic of the conversation is how to get more people involved in
IETF, not how to make them run away screaming and crying.
--
Website:
it, but it seems interesting).
Regards,
as
On 7/28/13 6:13 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
something closer to conferences, or to dumbing things down to
accommodate newcomers who I gather from discussion so far don't have
anything particular
Why during the F2F IETF meeting?
It seems that is not a good way to use the time of an AD during the F2F
IETF meeting. I think is a good idea to provide people remote-access to
ADs, but doing it during the F2F IETF meeting does not look like a good
use of resources.
/as
On
On Jul 28, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com wrote:
That may work as well.
It depends on the time that the presenters have to make the material
available.
The important is to have discussion-material available in advance. It
could be a
Douglas,
Totally agree that a requirement is that F2F and remote are equals.
I even believe that a presentation-less format (as the described) is
better for remote participants.
About the minor changes, perhaps. Not very convinced but it could be.
In the same line, what about to
Hi Dave,
I am not Jari, but I do have an opinion on your thoughts below...
On 7/29/13 1:25 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
I've been finding discussion and actions about newcomers far more
interesting this year, than most previous ones. So I think it's worth
pressing on several fronts, to see
I agree with John that audio and other things would be useful, but Brian is
also correct that they do involve some work. Let us see what we can do on audio
for IETF-88. Past recordings of the tutorials are available at
http://www.ietf.org/edu/process-oriented-tutorials.html#newcomers
On 27 Jul 2013, at 02:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
If I had known this was taking place I might have made the trip to Berlin.
I am very interested in the problem this tries to solve. I think it is the
wrong way to go about it but I am interested in the problem.
The
At 15:10 26-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
However, the IETF has been having a lot of discussions about
newcomers, diversity, and attracting new folks to participate
and get work done. I think those populations will be better
served if it is possible for people a lot less experienced than
At 23:17 26-07-2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
The second quote is valid in most cases, though we've had some
sessions at times that were designed more as education than
discussion. For instance, the IAB WCIT BOF last time.
The following will be discussed in the DMARC BoF:
a mechanism for
On 7/27/2013 7:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
interfere with the ongoing process of the group
...
The first quote might discourage newcomers from participating. I
suggest
From: Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
no one in IETF have been participating for longer than 30 years
The IETF was a renaming of things that existed before the formal first IETF
(in January, 1986). It's a direct descendant of the first 'TCP Working Group'
meeting, held in
://www.ietf.org/edu/process-oriented-tutorials.html#newcomers.
The meeting materials page does now have a training section now - added a
couple of hours ago, thanks Alexa! - and some of the materials are there.
We're working on putting the rest there.
(The newcomer's orientation file would
Simon,
for your information, the Meetecho team is going to record five tutorials on
Sunday:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#meetecho
We have already provided a URL for those who want to remotely attend the IAOC
Overview Session. If you think this might be of
Well, actually, the IETF is a continuation of the Network Working Group, which
formed organically in late 1968. We're a few days short of the 45 year mark.
The NWG had open meetings, developed the layered architecture and published
RFCs.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:07
On 7/27/13, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
one locates it (IETF Home Page - IESG - Members) one even gets
contact information as a bonus. And the listing of AD names is
pretty useless without contact info.
As from my remote participant experience in IETF Routing Area (rtg), I
was
On 28/07/2013 00:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 7/27/2013 7:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
interfere with the ongoing process of the group
...
The first quote might discourage
, in
order to familiarize themselves with the technology under
discussion. This may represent a challenge for newcomers, as e-
mail archives can be difficult to locate and search, and it may
not be easy to trace the history of longstanding Working Group
debates
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could provide short
video overviews to help people understand the work. This includes newcomers
and also interested observers, who may include implementers. Can that be
accommodated, maybe at a future meeting? I am happy to help
On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may
include implementers. Can that be accommodated
a trick or two) :-)
If there is a possibility, however remote, that someone, irrespective
or age or any other attributes, can teach me something I believe that
it is worthwhile to be open to that. Yes, it may have been tried
before. And yes, there is a history of failure.
However. Newcomers
On 27/07/13 23:22, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may
include
our work correct). But back to
the original question of how to bring newcomers in through
remote participation - I would start with the assumption that
they'd be participating, remotely or otherwise, because they
have some networking problem (and possibly solution) that needs
standardization. I'd
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote:
On 7/27/13 1:38 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
This includes newcomers and also
I think it would be really helpful/useful if working groups could
provide short video overviews to help people understand the work.
This includes newcomers and also interested observers, who may include
implementers.
putting up yuotube/vimeo tutorials on the wg's technical space would
I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
something closer to conferences, or to dumbing things down to
accommodate newcomers who I gather from discussion so far don't have
anything particular in mind.
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove
On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
projectors and screens.
Then I guess it's time for my quarterly I'd be good with that.
Melinda
I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
something closer to conferences,
with poster sessions!
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
On 7/27/13 8:23 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I would be very sorry to see IETF *working* meetings turned into
something closer to conferences,
with poster sessions!
A!
Melinda
On Jul 28, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/27/13 8:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
yup. i guess it is time for my quarterly suggestion to remove the
projectors and screens.
Then I guess it's time for my quarterly I'd be good with that.
As would I.
Keith
tutorial can be
prepared that is focused on remote participants, even that
session should be of interest.
For this particular meeting all of the following seem relevant
to at least some remote participants:
Newcomers' Orientation
Tools for Creating I-Ds and RFCs
be expected to succeed.
It would be helpful to new people if everything in the IETF was not a
treasure hunt or required an email broadcast for a person to find information.
The consensus of the IETF is that:
newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
observe and absorb
as to f2f
attendees. Until and unless a newcomer's tutorial can be
prepared that is focused on remote participants, even that
session should be of interest.
For this particular meeting all of the following seem relevant
to at least some remote participants:
Newcomers' Orientation
be
prepared that is focused on remote participants, even that
session should be of interest.
For this particular meeting all of the following seem relevant
to at least some remote participants:
Newcomers' Orientation
Tools for Creating I-Ds and RFCs
IAOC
it is still on the meeting agenda?
I am mentioning this on the IETF list only because it is another
example of the point that I (and probably SM and others) are
trying to make: If we are interested in newcomers, remote
participants without years of IETF experience, and/or increased
diversity, we
(and probably SM and others) are
trying to make: If we are interested in newcomers, remote
participants without years of IETF experience, and/or increased
diversity, we should not allow these kinds of issues to become
requirements for treasure hunts or other sorts of obstacles in
people's paths
that link appears on the main meeting page
because it isn't on either of the agenda pages. I suggest again
that these little treasure hunts work better for very
experienced participants and regular participants who are very
patient about searching for information, but much less well for
newcomers, remote
are interested in
newcomers, remote participants without years of IETF
experience, and/or increased diversity, we should not allow
these kinds of issues to become requirements for treasure
hunts or other sorts of obstacles in people's paths.
True. Though the chair names are on the posters linked
given a
different name, for various reasons, but that does make it a bit harder to
locate the mail list and draft.
True. Though the chair names are on the posters linked in the
materials page, which I assume is well-advertised to newcomers
as access to slides is rather important.
As far as I
--On Saturday, July 27, 2013 00:37 +0100 Tim Chown
t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
...
While we/you can try to guess what the problems are, it may be
better to surveymonkey those who registered as newcomers in a
couple of weeks and ask them about their experience, whether
they were aware
page, which I assume is well-advertised to newcomers
as access to slides is rather important.
As far as I know, the only advertisement is the link from the
Agendas and Meeting Materials section of the main meeting page
and the similar links from the Meetings entry on the IETF home
page. Now
as to f2f
attendees. Until and unless a newcomer's tutorial can be
prepared that is focused on remote participants, even that
session should be of interest.
For this particular meeting all of the following seem relevant
to at least some remote participants:
Newcomers' Orientation
On 7/26/13, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
The consensus of the IETF is that:
newcomers who attend Working Group meetings are encouraged to
observe and absorb whatever material they can, but should not
interfere with the ongoing process of the group
This is bad for IETF, why
Thanks, I agree with your points/suggestions. I want to add;
a) Work/Participation in IETF is remotely to run its daily business.
b) Newcomers (how many we have per meeting); are always welcomed, no
one in IETF have been participating for longer than 30 years, so some
how could we say
On 11/16/2012 12:27 AM, John Levine wrote:
Shall we move on?
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
IETF participants, it won't happen, and we're done.
I wonder how you measure/count
I wonder how you measure/count IETF participants...
Do you measure participants based on subscriptions to IETF
mailing-lists? -- If so, how do you assign a location to the plenty of
gTLD addresses? (including those at gmail.com)
I'm guessing based on the mail I see on the lists I'm on and the
Responses to a couple of points that people have made:
From: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com
I started, some years ago, with a meeting, because the culture that I
was used to was that conferences, be they annual or triannual, were
where things really happened and that e-mail filled in the gaps
On 16 Nov 2012, at 13:25, Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote:
Moving the IETF forward will involve reaching out to other peoples,
other regions, and yes, travel farther away once in a while. I also
understand that we need to do our part in terms of fostering and
increasing the
On 16/11/2012 01:27, John Levine wrote:
Shall we move on?
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
I wouldn't say that we agreed on that.
We do not want to look how to pay the extra cost, we are simply not
interested. We agree on this.
of this resistance is coming from,
and I sort of agree that newcomers need to prove themselves. But instead
of roadblocking and refusal I would have hoped to see something along
the lines of:
- What is a reasonable goal in terms of participation, so that having a
meeting in Latin America is actually
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
I wouldn't say that we agreed on that.
We do not want to look how to pay the extra cost, we are simply not
interested. We agree on this.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize this was a purely hypothetical argument.
Hi Carlos.
On Nov 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Hello,
On 11/16/12 1:27 AM, John Levine wrote:
Shall we move on?
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
IETF
On 15/11/2012 03:43, Melinda Shore wrote:
...
Right, I understand that (better than you might think - I live in
Alaska). But. I'm trying to understand the value in having people
attend one meeting. I've asked about that several times.
There are people who have attended one, or a very small
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11 AM
On 15/11/2012 03:43, Melinda Shore wrote:
...
Right, I understand that (better than you might think - I live in
Carsten, et al,
On 11/14/2012 11:08 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
My comment was not about getting work done, but about impact of this
work.
OK. So the choice of venue is supposed to serve two goals:
* Being useful for the workers developing IETF documents.
* Promoting that work to
As Arturo says, having people that traditionally go to an IETF meeting travel
to (for them) far away places and (for them) new cultures, do definitely open
their eyes to how large our world is.
I think that learning about other parts of the world is swell, but I don't
think the IETF should
On Nov 15, 2012, at 17:04, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
I'm saying that your point lacks an empirical basis
Yes.
I'm not even arguing that the IETF spend effort on obtaining that empirical
basis (hint: there is probably a great PhD thesis in organizational marketing
waiting to be
On 11/15/12 3:15 PM, John R Levine wrote:
As Arturo says, having people that traditionally go to an IETF meeting
travel to (for them) far away places and (for them) new cultures, do
definitely open their eyes to how large our world is.
I think that learning about other parts of the world is
Hello,
On 11/15/12 6:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 15/11/2012 03:43, Melinda Shore wrote:
We'd reached 50 attendees from China at IETF 63 before we even
started seriously negotiating the Beijing meeting. It seems to
me that the causality is mainly in the opposite direction:
On 11/15/12 8:47 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
I do believe that regions wanting to have an IETF meeting should also
give back in terms of active participation, I agree with that.
I really think there's an enormous disconnect here. I'm really unclear
on how this is supposed to work: if someone
Note that I didn't say 'give back in terms of attendees' , I wrote 'give
back in terms of participation', in my mind, participation *can* be
remote, although as I mentioned in an earlier email the IETF needs to
improve remote access facilities a lot.
However, the perception of almost everyone
On 11/15/2012 9:43 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
be more open.
It's important to distinguish between a 'workshop' and a 'working
meeting' where
On 11/15/2012 4:45 AM, t.p. wrote:
I started, some years ago, with a meeting, because the culture that I
was used to was that conferences, be they annual or triannual, were
where things really happened and that e-mail filled in the gaps in
between (and I think that this remains the case in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/15/2012 11:59 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
On 11/15/2012 4:45 AM, t.p. wrote:
I started, some years ago, with a meeting, because the culture that I was
used to was that conferences, be they annual or triannual, were where
things really happened
They are doing a great job, but I wouldn't said that all of that is on
IETF behalf. They are there because that is ISOC's mission, not to
represent us in the majority of their work.
If we want representation, we need to do it ourselves. ISOC would
support us, I am sure, but we
Hi,
On 11/15/2012 5:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/15/2012 9:43 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
be more open.
It's important to distinguish between
Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
be more open.
The IAOC has often noted that holding meetings in more exotic places is
considerably more expensive, the hotels and other services just
On 15/11/2012 21:01, John R Levine wrote:
Comparing with the ITU who does tour the world, organizing workshops in
far away places, I really think we should be trying a little harder to
be more open.
The IAOC has often noted that holding meetings in more exotic places is
Shall we move on?
Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs
involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of
IETF participants, it won't happen, and we're done.
That was simple, wasn't it?
On 11/12/12 6:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 11/11/2012 18:06, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
...
... snip ...
There's no doubt that personal attendance is the best way to get a full
understanding of how the IETF works, but remote participation is
supposed to work.
I fully agree. However,
On 11/14/2012 04:48 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
I've had much better remote
participation experiences in other conferences than I've had with the IETF.
Can you provide pointers?
Ta,
S.
On 11/14/2012 8:48 AM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
On 11/12/12 6:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 11/11/2012 18:06, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
...
... snip ...
There's no doubt that personal attendance is the best way to get a full
understanding of how the IETF works, but remote participation
On 14/11/2012 17:00, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Can you provide pointers?
Lots of meetings (e.g. ixp meetings, etc) do live video, although I'd
accept that not that many meetings have as many parallel tracks as IETF.
RIPE meetings provide both live video streaming and live stenography (they
use
On Nov 12, 2012, at 19:09, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Some people believe that the presence of an IETF meeting serves as a kind of
recruitment marketing to a region, for IETF participation. Beyond the
single-meeting boost in 'local' attendance, I believe we have no data
Sure!
- ICANN (Adobe Connect, so far the best I've experienced)
- Various training webinars, both as an attendee and as instructor using
the training edition of WebEx
- NANOG's video feeds are very good, although I don't recall the
platform they use (I'm sure someone will point us to it)
- Our
On 11/14/2012 9:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
(Another aspect beyond capturing regular attendees, of course, is
gaining local mindshare and relevance.
I believe I understand the concepts that are meant by such language.
But I do not know what you mean, with respect to the IETF. I
Carlos == Carlos M Martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com writes:
Carlos Sure! - ICANN (Adobe Connect, so far the best I've
Carlos experienced)
I had my first Adobe connect experience today. I care a lot more about
accessibility than most participants do. On this metric Adobe Connect
seems
On 11/14/2012 12:53 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I had my first Adobe connect experience today. I care a lot more about
accessibility than most participants do. On this metric Adobe Connect
seems to score very badly.
Sam, it could be quite helpful for you to suggest factors that you find
Dave
On 14/11/2012 17:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/14/2012 9:34 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
(Another aspect beyond capturing regular attendees, of course, is
gaining local mindshare and relevance.
I believe I understand the concepts that are meant by such language. But
I do not know
On 11/14/12 4:23 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Agree. But also people (and perhaps organisations, that also are
serious participants) in Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia
has less income than their counterparts in North America. Some of the
people from those places do serious
Melinda,
On 14/11/2012 23:55, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 11/14/12 4:23 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Agree. But also people (and perhaps organisations, that also are
serious participants) in Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia
has less income than their counterparts in North America.
On 11/14/12 5:55 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
My opinion is that being more open and international make us a better
standarization body and today the IETF is not doing enough.
We're a bunch of nerds, and I think that it would help if you
could be more specific about the problem you're
Melinda,
My point is beyond about venues.
But answering your question in how moving venues could help.
Diversity.
Going to other places would help bring people from other backgrounds,
different ideas, new ways of thinking, break paradigms, etc. People that
in
1 - 100 of 214 matches
Mail list logo
