On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
For the WS-Security WG we started off with 80 people on the calls.
not relevant. By their nature, teleconferance calls have the following
1) they are inherently exclusionary, as there is a finite number of
teleconference participants who must show up at the scheduled time, in
contrast to the e-mail process that is 7x24 and scales to any size of
2) teleconferences generally prevent and/or inhibit anonymonity, you must
identify yourself to participate in the call. For some conference
services, who ever runs the call can retrieve call originations from the
teleconference billing data.
3) it is problematic whether there will be a publically visible and
*accurate* record of the proceedings stored at an archive web address. it
entirely depends on the minutes taker's capacity to hear, capture to text,
and identify who said what. then post the results for review/comment.
4) it places at a disadvantage those participants who have English as a
Second Language, or reside in disparate time zones from the majority.
5) it incurs a recurrent economic and time scheduling expense to
In my IETF experience, conference calls are appropriate and work well for
a small circle of co-authors who are aligned around a common
proposal/draft. In other words, co-author working sessions. That is not
the case here.
In some cases, working groups may delegate subsets of their work to design
teams that work offline from the main group and then report their findings
in an Internet Draft. However, it is not clear to me that process does not
have some of the same exclusionary characteristics found in the
teleconference proceedings. at what point does the design team have too
many cooks? who decided team membership eligibility?
The IETF does have a process for announcing and convening interim
face-to-face working group meetings. If that is what is needed, then go
that route... but since Washington IETF is on the immediate horizon, that
seems redundant at this time.
The key thing is to have a clear statement of what issues have
been raised, which are closed and which the group is working on.
THis makes sense... In other IETF working groups, there has been an issues
tracker capability operated as a web site. The co-chairs or a volunteer
handled the administratrivia of keeping it current.
Now almost all the work was done by 10-15 people, but that is par
for the course.
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:50 AM
To: pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com; william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
Subject: RE: Ways to proceed
I think IETF WGs sometimes covene workshops in between IETF meetings.
That may not be the issue. The issue is what is practical.
With the use of internet there is no upper limit on the
number of people
who can participate. As opposed to that there is going to be
a limit on
the lines reserved on the confernce bridge. That would mean
only a subset
of possible folks can participate.
If some one can assure that everybody who wants to join can
join the audio
conferences, I will vote for those. Without that assurance I
fall back on internet communication.
[mailto:owner-ietf-mailsig(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of ext
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:26 AM
To: 'william(at)elan.net'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Subject: RE: Ways to proceed
Different setting, please don't make direct comparison and
remember THIS IS IETF WG group and NOT OASIS WG group so we
by IETF rules (no matter if you like those or not).
Not if the companies decide not to show up it isn't. Get the idea
out of your head that it is the IETF or nothing.
The IETF has proposed four email encryption and signature schemes.
None of them is a conspicious success.
As I pointed out in my first email, nothing in IETF rules prevents
the use of con calls. Come to that there is nothing to stop
bi-weekly face to face meetings.