Paul Vixie wrote:
In my opinion we need a 200% open process to qualify if a sponsor and
venue are acceptable or not. I'm sure Brian will heard us on this ;-)
Since site selection involves contract negotiations, I doubt if the
actual process can ever be even 100% open.
i think that transparency ser
On Mar 16 2005, at 19:33 Uhr, Dave Crocker wrote:
Cheap and easy travel and lodging, for diverse participation
I wouldn't want to completely rule out the US that quickly...
Gruesse, Carsten (who has had to stand in for a colleague with a Sri
Lanka passport on 2 out of 3 IETFs recently)
__
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:54 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> But what can, and IMHO
>
> should be, open is the set of technical and logistical criteria
> involved in site selection.
What are the primary goals, in defining those criteria?
That is, what do we want to have, once we have satisf
text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And just remember that site locals can be problematic ...
--- Original message -----------
Subject: Site selection [Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62
wirel
> > In my opinion we need a 200% open process to qualify if a sponsor and
> > venue are acceptable or not. I'm sure Brian will heard us on this ;-)
>
> Since site selection involves contract negotiations, I doubt if the
> actual process can ever be even 100% open.
i think that transparency serves
Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organización: IBM
> Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:39:54 +0100
> Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: "ietf@ietf.org"
> Asunto: Site selection [Re: reflections from the trenches of ietf62 wirel
Jordi,
In my opinion we need a 200% open process to qualify if a sponsor and venue
are acceptable or not. I'm sure Brian will heard us on this ;-)
Since site selection involves contract negotiations, I doubt if the
actual process can ever be even 100% open. But what can, and IMHO
should be, open is
