tion. It's not clear we have such a need
>any time soon, but I was only trying to provide an alternative model to
>charging remote participants. " [BA] It appears quite possible to
>significantly enhance remote participation in the IETF with minimal
>funding. The load patter
tive model to charging remote
participants. " [BA] It appears quite possible to significantly enhance remote
participation in the IETF with minimal funding. The load pattern of the IETF
(heavy during physical meetings, much lower in between), accommodates itself
well to the use of
Now I get it!!
A Spanglish translation would be "It depends how the rides in the
carnival goes for you" ("Depende como te va en la feria")
/as
On 8/26/13 1:54 PM, Dave Aronson wrote:
>> As my mother used to say "What you lose on the roundabouts
>> > you gain on the sw
> From: "Randy Presuhn"
>
> I had to google it as well. The word "roundabout" (in the
> sense of "traffic circle") led me to mistakenly think it
> had something to do with navigating British streets, but
> this seems to be where the idiom comes from:
> http://www.oldpoetry.com/Patrick_R_Chalmer
>
> > As my mother used to say "What you lose on the roundabouts
> > you gain on the swings"
>
> I had to go Google that. To save others the trouble: it seems to
> refer to rides at a carnival, and mean "whatever losses you suffer in
> one place, you usually make up elsewhere", implying that it
Hi -
> From: "Dave Aronson"
> To: "IETF Discussion Mailing List" ; "Janet P Gunn"
>
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Charging remote participants
...
> I had to go Google that. To save others the trouble: it seems to
&g
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
>> From: Abdussalam Baryun
>> Date: 08/25/2013 08:40 AM
>>
>> ...
>> The reward/motivation from IETF to participants is to
>> acknowledge in writting their efforts, which I think still the IETF
>> management still does not motivate/encourage.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013, Janet P Gunn wrote:
I have never felt "ignored" as a remote participant. Sometimes
misunderstood because there is little opportunity to expand and explain
when you are remote. But never ignored.
I have no idea what you mean by "hides information". Are you suggesting
th
> From: Abdussalam Baryun
> Date: 08/25/2013 08:40 AM
>
> ...
> The reward/motivation from IETF to participants is to
> acknowledge in writting their efforts, which I think still the IETF
> management still does not motivate/encourage.
I COMPLETELY disagree with this. The reward/motivation f
On Aug 25, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> I agree that charging IETF participants with any money is not a good idea,
> but charging participants with some effort/work/contribution to do is needed.
> For example, participants SHOULD do some work in IETF, either review,
> authori
etting raised... I think that charging remote
> participants any fee is a really terrible idea. One of the really great
> things about the IETF is its open and free (as in beer) participation
> policy. The real work is supposed to be done on mailing lists, and there's
> no charge or
On Monday, August 19, 2013 18:08:00 John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Monday, August 19, 2013 12:49 -0700 SM
>
> wrote:
> >...
> >
> >> First, I note that, in some organizations (including some
> >> large ones), someone might be working on an open source
> >> project one month and a proprietary one th
--On Monday, August 19, 2013 12:49 -0700 SM
wrote:
>...
>> First, I note that, in some organizations (including some
>> large ones), someone might be working on an open source
>> project one month and a proprietary one the next, or maybe
>> both
>> concurrently. Would it be appropriate for suc
Hi John,
At 06:11 19-08-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
I think this is bogus and takes us down an undesirable path.
Ok.
First, I note that, in some organizations (including some large
ones), someone might be working on an open source project one
month and a proprietary one the next, or maybe bot
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > But my point was more that "open source" is meaningless, and not what I
> > think we're missing/need. I agree we need more developers (at least in
> RAI
> > it would help), but whether the things they develop are open source or
> not
> >
On Monday, August 19, 2013 09:35:25 Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2013, at 8:04 PM, SM wrote:
> > On reading the second paragraph of the above message I see that you and I
> > might have a common objective. You mentioned that you don't know how to
> > do that beyond what is done now. I sugg
On Aug 18, 2013, at 8:04 PM, SM wrote:
> On reading the second paragraph of the above message I see that you and I
> might have a common objective. You mentioned that you don't know how to do
> that beyond what is done now. I suggested a rate for people with an open
> source affiliation. I
--On Sunday, August 18, 2013 17:04 -0700 SM
wrote:
>> I'd love to get more developers in general to participate -
>> whether they're open or closed source doesn't matter. But I
>> don't know how to do that, beyond what we do now. The email
>> lists are free and open. The physical meetings
Hi Hadriel,
At 05:33 18-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Define "open source developers". Technically quite a lot of
developers at my employer develop "open source", as do many at many
of the corporations which send people to the IETF. Heck, even I
personally submit code to Wireshark now and th
In article <01672754-1c4f-465b-b737-7e82dc5b3...@oracle.com> you write:
>
>I've been told, though obviously I don't know, that the costs are
>proportional. I assume it's not literally a "if we get
>one additional person, it costs an additional $500". But I assume SM wasn't
>proposing to get jus
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Hadriel Kaplan
wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2013, at 5:21 AM, SM wrote:
>
> > 1. If the IETF is serious about running code (see RFC 6982) it would try
> to encourage open source developers to participate more effectively in the
> IETF.
>
>
> Define "open source developer
I've been told, though obviously I don't know, that the costs are proportional.
I assume it's not literally a "if we get one additional person, it costs an
additional $500". But I assume SM wasn't proposing to get just one or a few
more "open source developer" attendees. If we're talking abo
--On Sunday, 18 August, 2013 08:33 -0400 Hadriel Kaplan
wrote:
>...
> And it does cost the IETF lots of money to host the physical
> meetings, and that cost is directly proportional to the number
> of physical attendees. More attendees = more cost.
I had promised myself I was finished with th
On Aug 18, 2013, at 5:21 AM, SM wrote:
> 1. If the IETF is serious about running code (see RFC 6982) it would try to
> encourage open source developers to participate more effectively in the IETF.
Define "open source developers". Technically quite a lot of developers at my
employer develop
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Hadriel,
> At 12:31 16-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
>> I may be misunderstanding you, but I'm proposing we charge "large
>> corporations with large travel budgets" slightly *more* than others.[1]
>> I'm not suggesting an overhaul of the system.
Hi Hadriel,
At 12:31 16-08-2013, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I may be misunderstanding you, but I'm proposing we charge "large
corporations with large travel budgets" slightly *more* than
others.[1] I'm not suggesting an overhaul of the system. I'm not
proposing they get more attention, or more wei
any time soon, but I
was only trying to provide an alternative model to charging remote participants.
-hadriel
truthfully say that anyone
can participate with just an email address and IMO we should not
damage that. (And yes, I recognise that you can participate much
more fully if you go to f2f or virtual voice meetings.) So IMO
discussion of details of charging remote participants is also
slightly damaging.
S.
>>
>> Thus, I think this is worth exploring, as an experiment, just like we
>> started the day-pass experiment a number of years ago.
>
> I don't know what "this" refers to in the above sentence, but I agree with
> everything else in your note.
Offer a "self-pay" rate, as suggested by Hadriel.
On Aug 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> IIR, we've tried audio input. It works really well for
> conference-sized meetings (e.g., a dozen or two dozen people
> around a table) with a few remote participants. It works really
> well for a larger group (50 or 100 or more) and one or
d I prefer audio
> input to typing into Jabber under the right conditions? Sure,
> in part because, while I type faster than average it still isn't
> fast enough to compensate for the various delays. But it really
> isn't a panacea for any of the significant problems.
>
>
pe faster than average it still isn't
fast enough to compensate for the various delays. But it really
isn't a panacea for any of the significant problems.
>> (2) Trying to figure out exactly what remote participation
>> (equipment, staffing, etc.) will cost the IETF and then tr
;> potential". We already have multiple reg-fee categories; I'm talking about
>> adding *one* more. I don't know who in the "leadership" can see a list of
>> what rates people paid - if we need to constrain that, that's a solvable
>> problem. It's not the sky falling.
>>
>> Regardless, the same argument can be made for charging remote participants
>> to "donate" 0-100% or whatever.
>>
>> -hadriel
>>
>>
>
e already have multiple reg-fee categories; I'm talking about
> adding *one* more. I don't know who in the "leadership" can see a list of
> what rates people paid - if we need to constrain that, that's a solvable
> problem. It's not the sky falling.
>
igure out exactly what remote participation
> (equipment, staffing, etc.) will cost the IETF and then trying
> to assess those costs to the remote participants would be
> madness for multiple reasons. [...snip...]
Yet you're proposing charging remote participants to bear the costs. I
I may be misunderstanding you, but I'm proposing we charge "large corporations
with large travel budgets" slightly *more* than others.[1] I'm not suggesting
an overhaul of the system. I'm not proposing they get more attention, or more
weight, or any such thing.
Of course they *do* have more
On 08/16/2013 11:36 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
As someone who just spent $3.5K out of pocket to show up in Berlin, I have a
hard time being sympathetic to someone who won't participate because he has to
spend $100 out of pocket.
This isn't abo
On 8/16/13 9:53 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> As someone who favors charging remote participants, who has paid
> most or all of the travel and associated costs for every meeting
> I've attended in the last ten plus years, and who doesn't share
> in a view of "if I can, e
On Aug 16, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/16/2013 6:10 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> Since the topic keeps getting raised... I think that charging remote
>> participants any fee is a really terrible idea. One of the really
>> great things about the IETF is
participation tools that would actually make people
> feel they are getting value back for a $100 remote attendance
> fee.
Please Dave Crocker's note before my comment below -- I agree
with mose of it don't want to repeat what he has already said
well.
As someone who favors chargi
I expect _I_ would pay $100 out of my own pocket, if it came to that.
But not all remote participants would be able to.
Janet
ietf-boun...@ietf.org wrote on 08/16/2013 10:56:27 AM:
> From: Keith Moore
>
>
> On 08/16/2013 09:38 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
> >
> ...I want it from
> > people who c
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 08/16/2013 09:38 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
> > >
> > ...I want it from
> > > people who can't get approval for even a $100 expense, from people
> > > who are between jobs, people from academia, and even from just plain
> > > ordinary users rather than j
Hello,
On 8/16/13 11:56 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> As someone who just spent $3.5K out of pocket to show up in Berlin, I
> have a hard time being sympathetic to someone who won't participate
> because he has to spend $100 out of pocket.
Funny reading that under the light of the IETF worried about
On 8/16/2013 6:10 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Since the topic keeps getting raised... I think that charging remote
participants any fee is a really terrible idea. One of the really
great things about the IETF is its open and free (as in beer)
participation policy. The real work is supposed to be
On Aug 16, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> As someone who just spent $3.5K out of pocket to show up in Berlin, I have a
> hard time being sympathetic to someone who won't participate because he has
> to spend $100 out of pocket.
This isn't about "fairness" or equal-pain-for-all. It's
tools it expensive in capex and opex as stated
before, but charging remote participants it is not the way forward,
unless that payment were optional (I personally I would do it, but I
know people -students, researchers in public universities, badly paid
engineers whose employer is not convinced that the
Keith,
Fortunately sympathy is unidirectional, therefore I keep all my respect
towards you while totally disagree with your opinion...
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 08/16/2013 09:38 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
>
> >
> ...I want it from
> > people who can't get approval f
On 08/16/2013 09:38 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
>
...I want it from
> people who can't get approval for even a $100 expense, from people
> who are between jobs, people from academia, and even from just plain
> ordinary users rather than just vendors or big corps.
I agree.
The realities of internal
08/16/2013 09:10:54 AM:
> From: Hadriel Kaplan
>
...I want it from
> people who can't get approval for even a $100 expense, from people
> who are between jobs, people from academia, and even from just plain
> ordinary users rather than just vendors or big corps.
I agree.
The realities of in
Since the topic keeps getting raised... I think that charging remote
participants any fee is a really terrible idea. One of the really great things
about the IETF is its open and free (as in beer) participation policy. The
real work is supposed to be done on mailing lists, and there'
50 matches
Mail list logo
