Harald, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> To: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>; <ietf@ietf.org>; <problem-statement@alvestrand.no> Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers > Christian, > > thanks for the correction. > We can quibble about the exact dates for a while, but I've made the quip > quite a few times that the IETF has a fine scalable management structure, > which will scale all the way to 700 participants...... so I agree that > "order of magnitude" is a misnomer. > > We do, however, have trouble, even at our currently reduced size. > > Harald > > --On 23. oktober 2003 22:40 -0700 Christian Huitema > <huitema@windows.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > The statement that you issued repeatedly mentions that the IETF rules > > and social contract were establish at a time when the IETF had 50 to 250 > > or 50 to 300 members. The obvious implication is that, since the > > attendance has grown by an order of magnitude, the rules have to change > > significantly. > > > > The problem is that the 50-300 numbers are wrong. The original rules of > > the IETF were indeed devised in 1986, when the IETF was just created and > > had maybe 30-50 members. However, the current rules were designed in > > 1992-1993, in large part because the IETF had outgrown the previous > > rules. If you look at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/past.meetings.html, > > you will see that the attendance then was in the 500-700 range. Dave > > Clark's statement was made during the 24th IETF, held July 13-17, 1992 > > in Cambridge, Massachusetts. There were 677 attendees. What was the attendance of the last meeting then? and also what then is the sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the Lists then too? I.e. what is the total size of the Vetting Community Resource that the IETF brings to the Party as an enterprise/org??? > > > > Since then, the IETF has grown, and then shrunk. The current size is > > about double the size of 1992. That is significant, but not quite an > > order of magnitude. > > > > -- Christian Huitema > > > > > >