It is a question of being able to participate to the appropriate debates as needed. Disfranchising is correct and does not limit to voting. Do not confuse being able as a group to agree on extending a meeting, in the absence of objections, with the meeting participants with changing the schedule at the last moment preventing participation of people would intended to participate face to face, traveled to that effect and registerd for it. Also do not confuse allowing email input of those who chose to contribute this way versus preventing those who want to participate (or believe that they have to do so) to the FTF discussions to do so. As soon that by allowing such late changes you prevent participation, there is a problem and these people are disfranchised. Nothing to do with voting. Let me be clear I am not asking anything about a voting model. I am asking that agenda be not changed long enough before a FTF (e.g. 15 days) and that changes after be only for adhoc meetings provided that there are no objevtions of meeting participants. Thanks Stephane _____ Stephane H. Maes, PhD, Director of Architecture - Mobile, Oracle Corporation. Ph: +1-203-300-7786 (mobile/SMS); Fax / UM: +1-650-607-6296. e-mail: stephane.maes@xxxxxxxxxx IM: shmaes (AIM, Y!) or stephane_maes@xxxxxxxxxxx (MSN Messenger) -----Original Message----- From: dee3@xxxxxxxxxxx <dee3@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: Stephane Maes <stephane.maes@xxxxxxxxxx> CC: ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sun Nov 07 05:57:40 2004 Subject: RE: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the last moment 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