Hi Adrian,
True, that also puzzled me a bit since the numbers do not match,
registration and attendee - the registration number is in general higher
than that of attendees.
Cheers,
Aaron
On 08/10/13 13:51, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Curiously these numbers do not match those at
The registration number may include remote participants while attendee
number shows how many actually went on-site.
Cheers,
Aaron
On 08/10/13 14:06, Richard Barnes wrote:
Indeed, the number Joe was counting was the number who filled out a
registration form. Counting those who actually paid
Hello,
Is there a pointer (maybe from IETF secretary)? The year with highest
number of attendees - which one is that? The exact number of
participants will be even better.
Thanks,
Aaron
Thanks for the pointer from Ray Pelletier.
It seems IETF-49 got the highest number - 2810.
2nd is IETF-46, 2379.
Cheers,
Aaron
On 08.10.2013 00:29, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
Hello,
Is there a pointer (maybe from IETF secretary)? The year with highest
number of attendees - which one
On 22/08/13 16:01, Thomas Narten wrote:
Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org writes:
The general point is that the new people whom we want
to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat
each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool.
It's not just new
On 06/08/13 14:08, Keith Moore wrote:
On 08/04/2013 02:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of reasons,
reading the slides early isn't that important. What is important is
that remote people see the slides at the same time as local people.
For
participants can be duly notified via WG mailing list, in
advance)
Thanks,
Aaron
On 06/08/13 14:49, Aaron Yi DING wrote:
On 06/08/13 14:08, Keith Moore wrote:
On 08/04/2013 02:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
While I think getting slides in on time is great for a lot of
reasons, reading the slides early isn't
On 06/08/13 19:03, Keith Moore wrote:
But if we're only concerned with making presentation slides available,
we're selling ourselves very short. That's the point I'm trying to
make.
Keith
Hi Keith,
Thanks for clarifying it - agree with you fully on this point.
Keeping a clear goal in
On 06/08/13 18:31, Michael Richardson wrote:
Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
An entirely different approach would be to have all speakers make
a
'reservation' into a single meetecho (or whatever) online queue,
and then get
called in order, whether local or remote and
On 05/08/13 10:38, Scott Brim wrote:
Right, but Fuyou was talking about *spoken* English being more
challenging than written English (if you can't *read* English fairly
quickly, drafts and mailing lists are impenetrable, and you're done in
the IETF). I'm told that it's easier for
On 04/08/13 20:53, John Levine wrote:
If there is a serious drive to discontinue the weekly posting
summary - I strongly object.
As far as I can tell, one person objects, everyone else thinks it's fine.
Seems like rough consensus to me.
+1
Aaron
R's,
John
On 04/08/13 23:37, Melinda Shore wrote:
We're all different, and for my purposes, in all honesty, having
slides unavailable until 45 seconds before a session start hasn't
been an issue as a remote participant. It's definitely aggravating
as a chair, though, since we need to get those uploaded
Dave Crocker
Aaron Yi Ding
Lars Eggert
SM
Monique Morrow
Hugo Salgado
Arturo Servin
Margaret Wasserman
Scott Weeks
AB
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
We have discussed diversity at the IETF at length. Yesterday, Pete
Resnick and I wrote
On 30/07/13 16:34, Jari Arkko wrote:
Arturo:
Now, something general related to the blog. Perhaps it would be good to
enable comments, isn't it?
understandable. based on the experience running one blog for a
organization, if such posts are in English, easily ended up with loads of
On 30/07/13 16:44, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/30/13 4:40 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Captchas? Recaptchas?
Also, AFAIK WordPress has some good anti-spam add-ons.
the obvious one is simply a requirement to use your ietf tools
credientials to post.
+1. the best current practice so far.
On 28/07/13 01:27, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 7/27/13 3:52 PM, 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, behind the single term conference that you
On 27/07/13 11:25, Alexa Morris wrote:
We have created a small section called Remote Participation on the lower right
side of the 87 meeting page here: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/index.html. It
can and will be improved over time, but it's a start.
+1. The key parts are there now.
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
On 25/07/13 05:27, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
I like Aaron's suggestion to update the web with important information about a
meeting. There is a lot of mail on the list and that could be a useful way to
communicate updates, etc.
Thanks, in case the previous mail is down in the pile
On 24/07/13 09:30, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:17 +0300 Jari Arkko
jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
And, incidentally, is there a way for remote participants to
sign up for one or both meeting-related mailing lists without
registering (or using a remote participation
On 12/07/13 05:21, Randy Bush wrote:
I notice most names in IETF are still presented in the English order,
given name first and family name later.
same issue with japanese names. there seems to be a convention of
capitalizing the family name
randy
Indeed a good practice. Capitalizing the
On 11/07/13 12:05, Tom McLoughlin wrote:
I've always pronounced Huawei as Hawaii tbh.
Not a bad idea to get Huawei smartphones under that brand name, which
sounds quite cute :)
Aaron
On 11/07/2013 11:25, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Zhongxin (Victor) wrote:
BRAVO,
On 18/06/13 21:08, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
When I make a statement at the microphone and then have multiple
people come to thank me afterwards for making that point I don't
consider it pontificating.
sorry, just point it out, sometimes you said it right, but that does not
guarantee
On 19/06/13 14:44, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Aaron Yi DING yd...@cs.helsinki.fi
mailto:yd...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote:
On 18/06/13 21:08, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
When I make a statement at the microphone and then have multiple
people come
On 19/06/13 21:16, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/19/2013 11:11 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 6/19/13 10:03 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
Short version, if everyone does what they can to encourage diverse
participation, we won't need legislation to fix the problem.
I'd like it if that were true but I don't
On 19/06/13 22:56, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
To help facilitate the mentoring aspect, there will be a call soon for
volunteers to act as mentors for newcomers (starting with IETF 87). Once the
web page for the mentoring
On 19/06/13 22:56, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
To help facilitate the mentoring aspect, there will be a call soon for
volunteers to act as mentors for newcomers (starting with IETF 87). Once the
web page for the mentoring
On 23/03/2013 18:00, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/22/2013 8:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
While I work for a very large shop now, for most of my career I have
worked for small or mid-size shops. Even startups. And all saw value
in sending me to IETF meetings.
Personal reference can be
On 19/03/13 17:19, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Mar 19, 2013, at 13:22, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Instead of getting a new badge every meeting, maybe we should just get
an IETF86 dot on a badge we keep from meeting to meeting.
I want my badge on a shiny embossed metal plate
29 matches
Mail list logo
