Stephane Maes <> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> This expectation is exactly what is inappropriate if IETF wants to
> attract pointed experts in a subject to contribute to a specific
> activity.
OK, so the original complaint seems to have been that the IETF was
violating its process or otherwise doing something bad to you; now
it seems that you just don't like how it works. The former was IMHO
invalid (based upon the documents cited by others), but the latter
is reasonable.
> Often they can't afford or justify to attend a week of
> other unrelated (even if interesting) discussions. Numbers have
> privately confirmed that they also see it as a major hinderance to
> participation and growth of IETF in some areas.
Again (I know this may be hard to understand), participation in the
IETF IS NOT predicated upon meeting attendance, nor are any binding
WG decisions made at the meetings. In fact, I know many 'subject
area experts' whom AFAIK have _never_ attended an IETF meeting, but
who nevertheless participate and contribute to great effect.
>
> BTW the tao is clear that agenda may change not to what extent.
> Common sense should prevail. One might argue that adding slots or
> movimng days is an unreasonable change. Extending meetings when
> agreed by participants would be much more acceptable.
>
> Eventually, I have noted and be told in several private notes that
> indeed this expectation of participation to the whole meeting has
> been questioned repeatedly and never addressed.
>
> I have been told that whatever worth is the argument the IETF will
> not care and will not act. It looks like it so far... But I hope
that
> this is not true and that IETF caters to the issues raised by its
> community and can adapt to changes when warranted. I have not seen
a
> discussion of pros and cons solely a statement that it's always
been
> like that and loosely stated as a foundamental assumption that if
you
> do not come the whole week, well too bad. That's not the way to
> address this.
>
> So I hope we will get a bit more constructive.
>
> Cheers.
>
> 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: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>
> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sun Nov 07 14:07:51 2004
> Subject: Re: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule
change
> at the last moment
>
> I haven't really see anyone state clearly what has always been my
> understanding of this issue.
>
> The IETF meeting starts Monday morning and ends Friday lunchtime.
We
> hold all the WG and BOF sessions in one place because synergy and
> cross-fertilization between WGs is necessary to achieve a
reasonably
> consistent Internet. The intention is that everybody stays for 4.5
> days and takes an active part in multiple WGs and BOFs.
Parachuting
> in for one WG is simply not effective, since we need to understand
> and resolve conflicting issues between WGs.
>
> In that context, late agenda changes in order to minimize clashes
are
> common events.
>
> (This is made fairly clear in the Tao of the IETF, which is more
or
> less required reading for newcomers:
> http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#2 .)
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hope this helps,
~gwz
Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by
simply
listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf