At 1:30 PM -0800 12/21/07, David Morris wrote:
Actually, I think the stronger complaints are about the fact that a meeting for another purpose ...
"another purpose"? Those of us who were at the IESG/IAOC plenary 2.5 weeks ago will remember that the vast majority of the mic time was to discuss (and/or pontificate) about IPv6 transition, IPv6 adoption, and the operational implications that are slowing the transition and adoption down. The discussion about IPv6 was an hour, maybe 90 minutes.
As someone whose IETF area doesn't intersect with IPv6 much, I found the mic time at this plenary a useful way to catch up with the current thinking of people who were more involved in the topic than I am. However, in the end, it was just talk. The upcoming plenary has the possibility of being much more useful. Sure, there is a chance that the mic time will be hogged by people who want to whine about how much more productive we would have been talking about something else at the mic (is that two layers of process indirection or three?); I'll risk having to sit through that.
For all the people who think the proposed plenary is a waste of time: please don't come to complain. Instead, go out to dinner someplace good, and post about that on the meeting mailing list immediately after eating (or maybe even during eating). *That* will be of great value to all of us who suffered through a few hours of no IPv4 service and thus have become even more hungry. Hopefully, you will be surprised by the number of people who reply from inside the plenary.
And who will bring a roll of stickers that say "Still running IPv6" for the survivors to wear the next day?
--Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf