Scott Brim wrote:
On 19 Dec 2000 at 11:07 -0500, Frank Kastenholz apparently wrote:
I believe that the only choices are
- limit attendance to "the right people" or
- accept the tourists and panda-watchers and
that the IETF meeting has evolved.
The right people include "monitors" these days.
Perhaps. But consider: there were 128 WG/BOF/area meetings (I think). A
typical working group has a relatively small number of active participants
(let's say 10--more than that usually gets unwieldy). So that's 1,280
active participants (fewer, since there's overlap) out of 2,768 attendees
in San Diego. Were there 1400 monitors?
This is different from active participants in one group who sit in on
another group. This is people who don't actively participate in any
group--and they appear to be in the majority.
And, no, I don't have a solution. I'm not even positive it's a problem.
It's just that, if it is a problem, it's a bigger one than I previously
realized.
--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |==============================================|
|eCal Corp. |Whose cruel idea was it for the word "lisp" to|
|francis(_at_)ecal(_dot_)com|have an "S" in it? |
\===============================================================/