Frank was a good AD and managed WGs as well as any of us (and better than
many)
as a wg chair who served in frank's area, i will second and third that.
randy
just testing
Hi everybody
it would be a great event!
Who manages IETF meetings planning?
Ciao
Roberto
alessio porcacchia wrote:
Dear Collegues and Friends,
When the Ietf must decide to prepare a meeting in Italy
I hope that see all of you "de visu" for talk to my "tech friends"
Ciao Alessio
Sys Adim
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Matt Holdrege wrote:
At 08:07 AM 12/19/2000, Frank Kastenholz wrote:
At 09:28 AM 12/19/00 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:
We can also end the de facto practice of
using the sessions as tutorials and discontinue fancy prepared
presentations of the material already in the
What happened to the proven and time-honored technique of
getting
to a meeting early if you want a seat? I know the argument is
that
we want to hang out in the hallways until the last minute and
still
get a seat (because we are more "important" than a bunch of the
people
that did get there
No more e-mails; Please!!
Many thanks
Leon Thompson
Research Development Manager
RaidNet Ltd
Let me give you an example of where this didn't work recently. At San
Diego, we had back-to-back meetings of WREC followed by OPES BoF and CDNP
BoF. For the most part, there was a very large overlap in the attendance.
If you did not forgoe the coffee break and - literally! - run between the
I agree with John and Bob Braden on this. We shouldn't worry about
people who lurk for a few meetings and then participate, or people who
lurk in some WGs and participate in others. We *should* worry about people
who come to the IETF once and never come back - because they probably came
to the
We *should* worry about people
who come to the IETF once and never come back - because they probably came
to the wrong meeting, and went home unhappy.
Well, you've certainly convinced me never to attend a meeting.
The attitude being promulgated by the majority of these posts,
whether
I have an old Roamabout hub. What to see if I can get an 802.11b card (and
microcode) for it. If anyone knows who to turn to for this, please email
me. I can't find it on any of Cabletron's splinter companies.
Let me give you an example of where this didn't work recently. At San
Diego, we had back-to-back meetings ...
There is another solution for real WG participants. Simply abandon the
meetings to what by someone's estimate is the overwhelming majority of
observers and other dead weights. Do
At 10:10 -0600 12/20/00, Robert G. Ferrell wrote:
We *should* worry about people
who come to the IETF once and never come back - because they probably came
to the wrong meeting, and went home unhappy.
Well, you've certainly convinced me never to attend a meeting.
The attitude being
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 08:20:12PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
I would also favor equipping Chairs with long poles with hooks
at the end for dragging performers offstage, or at least on/oiff
switches for microphones :-)
The "Bradner method" has long functioned for this. The Chair (or AD)
We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come
back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home
unhappy.
interesting idea.
so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
different than it is, and going home disappointed,
At 11:20 AM 12/19/00 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
How about a first step: In WG sessions that I chair, there are going to be
no more presentations. From now on, one week before the IETF meeting,
document editors will be required to send me a list of outstanding issues
they wish to discuss in
John-
Every IETF meeting results in a discussion of WG chairs asking their attendees
to read the drafts, get involved on the email, etc.
Time has not changed the fact that some folks to and some do not follow this
suggestion. Many folks attend the BOF/WG in order to get started!
However, I
I think you misheard me, or I misspoke. I would be the last person to suggest
we should turn away new people. But many people come to exactly one meeting
(I can't quote statistics, but the Secretariat knows the numbers), and this
seems all wrong to me - the IETF only makes sense for sustained
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:00:59PM -0800, John Beck wrote:
Keith I honestly don't know how many of the 'lurkers' in any particular room
Keith are actively participating in some WG versus how many are lurking in
Keith all of them. but I do know that a large number of lurkers is harmful
Keith
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, John Stracke wrote:
Why don't you read the I-D
I did.
Then you'd see that the invisibility refers to that of the server
host, as follows: The client sees only the service name binding
in the form of the URL, but what it gets as the data path is
a virtual path (or LSP)
I have a simpler point about logistics. What we are doing in the IETF
nowadays is downright dangerous. Prevalence of the laptops means that
the room is criss-crossed with power cables. Lack of room means that the
alleys are packed with standing or sitting listeners. If anything goes
wrong and we
We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come
back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home
unhappy.
interesting idea.
so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
different than it is, and going home
A couple of years ago I did a study on IETF attendance - the data was
gathered from the IETF web site looking at email addresses for folks attending.
Of the 15 or so ompanies that were examined almost all attendees were
almost always "repeaters". I cannot be more specific because the report
still
If people want tutorials, then I think we should have them
Did you see the Security Tutorial in the IETF 49 Agenda that was scheduled
on Sunday?
I'm unsure as to the number of folk who attended or their impressions of
what they got out of it, or what the IETF fgot out of it, as I have not
it's interesting that you chose to examine attendees according to their
(presumed) "companies", when IETF doesn't recognize such affiliation.
however it's hardly surprising if successful IETF folks gravitate to
companies who are willing to support such work.
Keith
The attitude being promulgated by the majority of these posts,
whether justified or not, is most likely to lead (IMO)
to IETF meetings populated by two distinct groups of people:
1) Old timers
2) The clueless masses
in my experience, clueful newbies are quite welcome at IETF, and
very
Michael,
As I said, the Secretariat has the facts, but I think you will find that the complete
data support the statememt that we have a high proportion of newbies. Which is
not a bad thing in itself, but is a bad thing if they don't become contributors.
Jeffrey Altmann expressed it very well.
Keith Moore wrote:
We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come
back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home
unhappy.
interesting idea.
so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
different than it is, and
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:00:53 EST, RJ Atkinson said:
I've seen others do similarly. For example, I've
never run into Valdis at an IETF meeting, but he has an
impact.
If anybody's seen me at an IETF meeting, they were talking to a Klingon
impostor. As John Beck will testify, I don't
% We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come
% back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home
% unhappy.
%
% Brian
%
% so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
% different than it is, and going home
I've taken the liberty of posting it to the mailing list as IMHO the issues
Joel raises are very pertinent and I believe worthy of general consumption.
[Also, I use colourful syntax highlighting in Vim under Mutt, which makes
it easy for me to view the inline quotation. I realise it will look
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:54:22 CST, Brian E Carpenter said:
Hard to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are
both on the web site. Maybe we need some text on the registration page
pointing to those and suggesting strongly that people should read them
before typing in their
Bill, just a minor note
it was done. And with a nod to our commercial brethren, it might bre
reasonable to retransmit sessions over some high-capacity,
under-utilized infrastructure like the I2 fabric to reach more people.
And given the lower costs for video-capture it ought to be
At 9:44 AM -0800 12/20/00, Christian Huitema wrote:
I have a simpler point about logistics. What we are doing in the IETF
nowadays is downright dangerous. Prevalence of the laptops means that
the room is criss-crossed with power cables. Lack of room means that the
alleys are packed with standing
At 1:54 PM -0600 12/20/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hard to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are
both on the web site.
It is important to note that the Tao is being substantially upgraded
and has lots of new material specifically aimed at dealing with some
of the
On 12/20/00 at 9:37 AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 11:20 AM 12/19/00 -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
How about a first step: In WG sessions that I chair, there are
going to be no more presentations. From now on, one week before the
IETF meeting, document editors will be required to send me a list
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
maybe the registration form should have a short quiz on material from
these documents, which must be filled out before the form is considered
complete. and if not completed successfully the prospective
registrant is warned that he may be wasting his
% Bill, just a minor note
%
%
% it was done. And with a nod to our commercial brethren, it might bre
% reasonable to retransmit sessions over some high-capacity,
% under-utilized infrastructure like the I2 fabric to reach more people.
% And given the lower costs for video-capture it
one of nature's great dualities: statedulness will take root in the
most barren soil, even though datagrams will try to route around it
j
though if nat speak unto nat, then ipv6 be born
% Bill said:
%a "winnowing" process is now in effect, making it harder, perhaps
%much harder to allow individual contribution. If I was starting today,
%I'd avoid the IETF as a venue.
%
% If we are projecting this image, it's a problem. But given the constant
% increase
Hello ALL,* Apologies if you receive multiple
copies of this
*--IEEE
Symposium on Ad Hoc Wireless Networks (SAWN)
2001--Symposium
ChairmanProf. C-K. TohElectrical Computer
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:41:43 CST, Pete Resnick said:
Nonsense. Leaving aside BOFs (which I do think are different), I defy
you to give me one example where a presentation is the right thing to
do in a WG face-to-face meeting. Presentations can either be done in
written form (on the mailing
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:54:18 PST, Bill Manning said:
I am trying to decide the extent to which I wish to become involved
in the specific area. So far I have had the area director hiss at me when I
stated my company name at the WG meeting and been told that certain
solutions could not
Interesting meeting, any idea of the agenda?
RGDS
Kheder Durah, Ph.D.
-Original Message-
From: Roberto Ciacci [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:56 PM
To: alessio porcacchia
Cc: Dave Robinson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ietf meeting in Italy?
Hi
% Bill: Could you clarify 2 things, if you know the answers to either?
%
% Valdis Kletnieks
I was not present so I could not clarify. It does seem pretty
clear that these days, "bad-ideas" are often floated and experimented
with in other
44 matches
Mail list logo
