On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Stephane H. Maes wrote:
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:27:04 -0800 From: Stephane H. Maes <stephane.maes@xxxxxxxxxx> To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the last moment
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.
There are more who are very happy with the flexibility to be able to schedule last minute meetings, move things around to avoid external conflicts, expand a WG meeting if issues come up, etc.
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.
You can't "disenfranchise" people in an organization that doesn't vote. IETF WG actions are based on mailing list rough consensus. You have demonstrated that you have an email account.
You might note that another standards organization that I am active in, IEEE 802.11, which has a specified membership and voting, has numerous task group meetings spread over each of its week long meetings. There are people interested in only one or two task groups. But voting membership in 802.11 requires essentially week long attendance (technical attendance at 75% of the session slots during a week) for multiple meetings.
In the very unlikely case the IETF changed to a voting model, who do you think would qualify for voting? People like you who with narrow interest in one WG or people who show a broader continuing interest in the IETF's activities? If you wish for a voting model, be careful since if you get what you wish you might actually be "disenfranchised".
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.
To the contrary, the IETF believes it is so important to "enable participation of all relevant parties" that it makes the important participation to be via email, which is certainly more available than physical attendance.
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
Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@xxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf