>> Why don't we focus on what are the unique IETF technical requirements >> that would drive a system choice? As I understand it, that -- exactly that -- drove the choice to work with Meetecho. Regards Brian Carpenter On 13-Jun-20 11:14, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > Larry, > > The history of the relationship between the IETF and “The Meetecho Guys” goes back a decade or more. They have been working closely with the NOC and others to tailor the system to our needs. > > Ole J. Jacobsen > Editor & Publisher > The Internet Protocol Journal > Cell: +1 415 370-4628 > T-Mobile: +1 415 889-9821 > Docomo: +81 90 3337 9311 > http://protocoljournal.org > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 12 Jun 2020, at 16:09, Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> "I believe IETF chose for good reason" doesn't sound open or transparent. >> >> Why don't we focus on what are the unique IETF technical requirements >> that would drive a system choice? Are they listed in the >> conference-tech-lab's >> list of things to consider? Something that the system chosen uniquely >> meets? Those considerations are important to capture, and would >> then become part of the RFP. Surely if they can run a conference >> using any of the listed systems, they could run one using meetecho too. >> >> I'd think we'd want to contract with SOMEONE to actually manage >> logistics, rather than roll our own, in a hurry. >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> >>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 3:05 PM >>> To: Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx>; 'Jay Daley' <jay@xxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: 'IETF Rinse Repeat' <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >>> Subject: RE: Registration details for IETF 108 >>> >>> >>> >>> --On Friday, June 12, 2020 13:37 -0700 Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> ... >>>> For moving IETF online, I'd suggest hiring some group that does it >>>> for a living >>>> >>>> https://www.diplomacy.edu/conference-tech-lab >>>> >>>> in consultation with IETF in an open transparent manner, of course. >>> >>> Larry, that path leads to a rathole-rich environment with very smart and >>> well-fed rats. Among other things, I note that Diplo's list does not >> include >>> Meetecho, which I believe IETF chose for good reasons and with the >>> limitations of other systems for our purposes in mind and then, more >>> important, assorted people (including Ray and the Secretariat) worked >>> closely with the developers to further adapt to our needs. >>> >>> Moreover, unless something has changed that you or Jay know about but I >>> don't, prior experience with Meetecho strongly suggests that, if we >> discover >>> deficiencies that we would like to have corrected before IETF 108 and give >>> them reasonable notice, the chances of getting those changes made are >>> quite good. >>> Having tried, in non-IETF contexts, to work with the providers of three or >>> four of the systems Diplo lists to get bugs or unfortunate features fixed, >> a >>> year or two might be plausible, but not six weeks.... unless , of course, >> one is >>> a government making demands and/or threats. >>> >>> It seems to me that Jay has, to his credit even if he has not gotten it >> right >>> every time, been struggling to avoid such ratholes.. If nothing else, even >> if >>> Diplo were a perfect match, there almost certainly is not enough time to >>> work out a contract with them, have them understand our needs, adjust fees >>> as needed, and then go into a meeting that is now only six weeks away >>> without creating unacceptable risk. >>> >>> So, at minimum, can we postpone that particular discussion until we get >>> through IETF 108 and can start assessing what we learned and what to do >>> next? >>> >>> thanks, >>> john >> >>
