Dave, Thanks I appreciate that indeed IETF makes strong assumptions regarding FTF participation and that a non negligible fraction of the participants do not share this view. I believe that these assumptions are not appropriate and risks to disfranchise experts in particular topics who can't attend / justify to attend the whole meeting. As IETF grows it is important to be all encompassing of such participants. I think that the discussion that you mention would be quite useful and hopefully allow to find a way to better address these issues. In the meanwhile, being disfranchised by the issues, it seems normal to log an objection. Especially as some answer to my early concern have indicated that some believe at IETF that it is unimportant to encourage and enable participation of all relevant parties... I can only strongly disagree with that view and complain if it is the one that de facto prevails. Thanks Stephane _____ Stephane H. Maes, PhD, Director of Architecture - Mobile, Oracle Corporation. Ph: +1-203-300-7786 (mobile/SMS); Fax: +1-650-506-7222; Office UM: +1-650-607-6296. e-mail: stephane.maes@xxxxxxxxxx IM: shmaes (AIM) or stephane_maes@xxxxxxxxxxx (MSN Messenger) -----Original Message----- From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:28 AM To: Stephane H. Maes; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the last moment Stephen, On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 03:10:39 -0800, Stephane H. Maes wrote: > I have difficulty to understand why this is not reverted when > contested. I also have difficulty understanding how such a position > can be taken. The agenda was draft? So it can't be draft till the > end? People have to make their travel arrangements? So eithere the > change is too late or the draft agenda remained draft too late. I > can't believe you argue this is acceptable. You appear to have a model for IETF meeting scheduling that does not match its long history. The model the IETF has *always* used is that the meeting is all week and it presumes that attendees are present all week. That this model is problematic for many people has been clear for many years. However changing the model is quite a major bit of work, and would go deeply into the IETF cultural view of the nature of the meeting. IETF participation is very different today, than it was 15 years ago. So it is fine and reasonable to suggest considering a new model, but this should be pursued as constructive adaptation to changing needs, rather than as a complaint about a particular decision. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... www.brandenburg.com _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf