Its a long time since I attended a WG where the simple formalisms of "read the drafts" and "if not participating, please sit at the back" got applied.
I don't feel objectified being combed out like this, It gives me comfort I can 'audit' a session without impeding real work, and it makes it clearer the obligations on me if I chose to speak to the mike, ill prepared.
I realize the best course would be not to be in the room if not able to contribute, but you will (I hope) understand that being close to a meeting with potential for interest is hard to subsume. Hence, my suggestion more WG chairs actively canvas who in the room CAN meaningfully discuss, and prioritize seating accordingly (or at least suggest it)
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:17 AM, <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's a distinction between 'privileges some' and 'completely excludes others'.
But, to give an example, an interesting comparison: a while back we gave an update on a protocol to an IETF area meeting. We'd written four interrelated drafts, including discussion of congestion control, exposed it to a couple of working groups over the course of a couple of years, done our mailing list work and homework.
A Rather Large Company gave an update on their protocol in that session as well. They hadn't written an internet draft, or discussed it much on IETF mailing lists - because to discuss something, you really need an internet draft as a common frame of reference. But, hey, Big Company, threatening to deploy and change the world. Much meeting discussion was then given over to 'will you write an internet draft?' and 'have you considered congestion control?' Not productive use of facetoface time for most. Beneficial to the company, and possibly to others who would be affected by deployment of this protocol? Well, yes, so including them was worthwhile, and we need to be inclusionary and encourage new ideas. But they were privileged by being in the room. (And I don't think they've written a draft up yet either. Couldn't find one.)
That is what I mean by privilege. If you can go to meetings, you can skip a lot of understanding of the IETF through mailing lists.
From: Loa Andersson [loa@xxxxx]
Sent: 12 February 2014 13:09
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Cc: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Subject: Re: calls for discussion
All,
First I agree with Lloyd the misuse of normtive language in mails,
jsut look a bit peculiar and does not carry any weight.
Lloyd,
While it is true that most work in the IETF happens on mailing lists,
and should be taken there as fast as is ever possible, it is not true
that all work is is done on mailing lists. If it did everything in
Note Well that does say anything about things that does not happen on
the mailing lists would be moot.
I hope you don't want to real work coming out of chance meetings in
the corridors of the IETF meeting venue. Consider me walking down the
corridor and by chance happens to start talking to the a bright person
from one of my worst competitors about something that has slowly
emerged in my head over the last few hours. He or she confirms the
same problem has just occurred him/her. After 10 mins of discussion we
have something that can go into a draft.
Do you seriously say that we should be stopped for writing the draft,
just because our discussion took place face to face, rather than on
a mailing list?
/Loa
On 2014-02-12 19:26, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Starting an idea in the meeting privileges only those who are in the room.
>
> The work of the IETF is on the mailing lists.
>
> You MUST stop using normative language in emails. It carries no weight.
>
> Lloyd Wood
> http://about.me/lloydwood
> ________________________________________
> From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 February 2014 10:16
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: IETF Disgust
> Subject: Re: calls for discussion
>
> On 2/12/14, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> we waste immense amounts of time of the literate in a hopeless attempt
>> to insert clue into the lazy or illiterate.
>
> The drafts are requested on the lists to be presented and all have
> same chance to present or object to a presentation, chairs SHOULD only
> put the request on the list and see priorities and agreements from the
> WG.
>>
>> just say a hard no to "i want to present draft-..." has your draft been
>> discussed on the mailing list and has shown serious divergence of views
>> such that facetime is really needed?
>
> No, there can be a chance to start discussions in meetings as well. I
> recommend you object the drafts that you think is a waste of your time
> and discuss with your WGs, without throwing vegetables.
>
> AB
>
--
Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Senior MPLS Expert loa@xxxxx
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64