Dave,
Thanks I appreciate that indeed IETF makes strong assumptions regarding FTF
participation and that a non negligible fraction of the participants do not
share this view.
I believe that these assumptions are not appropriate and risks to disfranchise
experts in particular topics who can't attend / justify to attend the whole
meeting. As IETF grows it is important to be all encompassing of such
participants.
I think that the discussion that you mention would be quite useful and
hopefully allow to find a way to better address these issues.
In the meanwhile, being disfranchised by the issues, it seems normal to log an
objection. Especially as some answer to my early concern have indicated that
some believe at IETF that it is unimportant to encourage and enable
participation of all relevant parties... I can only strongly disagree with that
view and complain if it is the one that de facto prevails.
Thanks
Stephane
_____
Stephane H. Maes, PhD,
Director of Architecture - Mobile, Oracle Corporation.
Ph: +1-203-300-7786 (mobile/SMS); Fax: +1-650-506-7222; Office UM:
+1-650-607-6296.
e-mail: stephane(_dot_)maes(_at_)oracle(_dot_)com
IM: shmaes (AIM) or stephane_maes(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com (MSN Messenger)
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:28 AM
To: Stephane H. Maes; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the
last moment
Stephen,
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 03:10:39 -0800, Stephane H. Maes wrote:
I have difficulty to understand why this is not reverted when
contested. I also have difficulty understanding how such a position
can be taken. The agenda was draft? So it can't be draft till the
end? People have to make their travel arrangements? So eithere the
change is too late or the draft agenda remained draft too late. I
can't believe you argue this is acceptable.
You appear to have a model for IETF meeting scheduling that does not
match its long history. The model the IETF has *always* used is that
the meeting is all week and it presumes that attendees are present all
week.
That this model is problematic for many people has been clear for many
years. However changing the model is quite a major bit of work, and
would go deeply into the IETF cultural view of the nature of the
meeting.
IETF participation is very different today, than it was 15 years ago.
So it is fine and reasonable to suggest considering a new model, but
this should be pursued as constructive adaptation to changing needs,
rather than as a complaint about a particular decision.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
www.brandenburg.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf