On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Stephane H. Maes wrote:
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:27:04 -0800
From: Stephane H. Maes <stephane(_dot_)maes(_at_)oracle(_dot_)com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the
last moment
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.
There are more who are very happy with the flexibility to be able to
schedule last minute meetings, move things around to avoid external
conflicts, expand a WG meeting if issues come up, etc.
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.
You can't "disenfranchise" people in an organization that doesn't vote.
IETF WG actions are based on mailing list rough consensus. You have
demonstrated that you have an email account.
You might note that another standards organization that I am active in,
IEEE 802.11, which has a specified membership and voting, has numerous
task group meetings spread over each of its week long meetings. There are
people interested in only one or two task groups. But voting membership in
802.11 requires essentially week long attendance (technical attendance at
75% of the session slots during a week) for multiple meetings.
In the very unlikely case the IETF changed to a voting model, who do you
think would qualify for voting? People like you who with narrow interest
in one WG or people who show a broader continuing interest in the IETF's
activities? If you wish for a voting model, be careful since if you get
what you wish you might actually be "disenfranchised".
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.
To the contrary, the IETF believes it is so important to "enable
participation of all relevant parties" that it makes the important
participation to be via email, which is certainly more available than
physical attendance.
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
Donald
======================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com
155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w)
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Donald(_dot_)Eastlake(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf