I actually think IETF might function better if nobody's badge had his
company's name on it, and nobody used a company email address. People
place way too much importance on someone's employer. Yes, sometimes
people break the rules and speak for their employers, but it's not wise
to assume
--On Saturday, 06 August, 2005 12:00 +0200 Keith Moore
moore@cs.utk.edu wrote:
I actually think IETF might function better if nobody's badge
had his company's name on it, and nobody used a company email
address. People place way too much importance on someone's
employer. Yes, sometimes
On 6-aug-2005, at 12:00, Keith Moore wrote:
I actually think IETF might function better if nobody's badge had
his company's name on it, and nobody used a company email address.
That assumes that someone's company is irrelevant to their
viewpoints. I don't think this is generally true in
I think the companies deserve a minimal amount of recognition for
supporting our participation.
And our place in the world informs our perspectives. That is why it is
common in the routing discussions to have the question how many people in
this room are operators? We want their perspective.
On 3-aug-2005, at 16:09, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
For the cases where there is a major infrastructure change that
needs to
be achieved I would like to see a more interactive process. At present
the development model is a bunch of boffins go out into a shed, build
something and then ask
works.
Spencer
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF General Discussion Mailing List ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:55 AM
Subject: RE: I'm not the microphone police, but ...
There are cases where it is useful for a group to be able to take
notice
of first
my 2 cents as well:
And whether or not people mention their affiliate at the mic is a
much smaller issue IMO to whether they use their company email
account. That is a much more visible and relevant label in IETF work
that mostly happens on mailing lists anyway.
I believe that its good to
Well, the one that really pushes my button is when someone, probably
a vendor, but even sometimes an operator, comes to the mic and says
The Really Big SDO needs this work. Its impossible to know if this
person has any official standing at the Really Big SDO, or if it is
a possition that that
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
That would be fine, if I changed the Newcomer's Orientation :-)
That computes.
Brian
Spencer
Spencer,
However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to
get here in Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most
cases). I think its a
At 09:11 03/08/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Philip,
Our mileages probably vary (welcome to the IETF, variable mileage is how
we know we're here!), but ...
In the working group chair training, we point out that the most important
thing working group chairs do, and the only responsibility
I am sure large corporations would be more careful at sending their
high-order IQ if they known that their inputs will tagged with the
company name.
What a wonderful world it would be, if that were true...
I'm pretty sure that less than 0.001 percent of the management teams
at my IETF
--On 3. august 2005 12:53 +0300 John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
my 2 cents as well:
And whether or not people mention their affiliate at the mic is a
much smaller issue IMO to whether they use their company email
account. That is a much more visible and relevant label in IETF work
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the risk of providing an irritating counterexample or two...
Please explain this to almost every wireless carrier in the
world, especially those offering 3G or similar
Internet-based data services. Established actors, significant
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Well, the one that really pushes my button is when someone, probably a
vendor, but even sometimes an operator, comes to the mic and says The
Really Big SDO needs this work. Its impossible to know if this person
has any official standing at the Really Big SDO, or if it is
Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
Call me a dreamer, but if there's one voice (which may or may not be
from another planet) in a working group, the chair's
responsibility is
to decide if this is one of the hopefully rare cases where one voice
SHOULD derail apparent consensus, and if it's not -
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
These communities may not even be SDOs - they can be operator
consortia,
vendor consortia, industry consortia, or Lord knows what.
Ah, but those we can simply treat as individual
contributions, because there is no reason to do otherwise.
For the cases
At 14:16 03/08/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I am sure large corporations would be more careful at sending their
high-order IQ if they known that their inputs will tagged with the
company name.
What a wonderful world it would be, if that were true...
I'm pretty sure that less than 0.001
- Original Message -
From: Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IETF General Discussion Mailing List ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: I'm not the microphone police, but ...
I am sure large corporations would be more careful at sending their
high
At 17:22 01/08/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
That would be fine, if I changed the Newcomer's Orientation :-)
Spencer
Spencer,
However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to get
here in Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most cases). I
think its a different
Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
This is why I suggest the real danger for the IETF is the
collusion of
large organisations through external consortia to get a
market dominance
through de facto excluding IETF standardisation and IANA
registry control.
And this is why I suggest the best
At 16:23 02/08/2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
This is why I suggest the real danger for the IETF is the
collusion of
large organisations through external consortia to get a
market dominance
through de facto excluding IETF standardisation and IANA
registry
From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Except if you can grab a BCP. I am not sure you are actually
right. You certainly know a few cases.
The lack of an IETF endorsed spec from MARID did not stop Microsoft from
holding an industry gala two weeks ago in NYC. Nobody commented
My 2 cents:
I firmly believe in the individual and voluntary aspects of IETF
attendance. I also belong to both categories; sure my employer pays for
the expenses, but nobody forced me to come over. (Come on it's Paris
after all, although I have gone to all of the Minneapolis meetings, too. ;)
I
There are cases where it is useful for a group to be able to take notice
of first hand experience that comes from employment.
For example I am currently reading a somewhat sureal thread in which an
individual who clearly has no experience or understanding of running
network operations for a large
Interesting: I like you piercing spirit. But, I am afraid you are too much
legacy intoxicated :-) what I think surprising. I suppose we agree but you
have odd ways of seeing it.
At 18:58 02/08/2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Except if
--On Tuesday, August 02, 2005 07:23 -0700 Hallam-Baker,
Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly there are bizare corporations attempting to achieve
some sort of stranglehold. Anyone remember digital convergence
and the CueCat? That type of behavior tends to come from
market entrants
Spencer,
However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to get here in
Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most cases). I think its a
different issue if I come to the mic and say, 'We at the ACME company would
like to state, for the record, that we support the foo
That would be fine, if I changed the Newcomer's Orientation :-)
Spencer
Spencer,
However, many people here are not using their 'individual money' to
get here in Paris. Our name badges list our employers (in most
cases). I think its a different issue if I come to the mic and say,
'We at
Well, there is another interesting requirement. Many people think stating
who you work for is a kind of Full Disclosure statement. I work for foo
- there for any statements about protocol bar should be taken through a
filter of what company foo is doing.
I usually state my current affiliation
29 matches
Mail list logo
