Hi Ole, folks,
That woke me up.
I'm not a registered attendee of the Beijing meeting.
BUT ...
1. The suggestion this is run like a RIPE meeting seems out of place
-- I had thought this was the IETF.
2. In the 14 years I have been going to IETFs, there has been a badge
police of varying competence on two main areas; food/refreshments
and the terminal room.
I have NOT seen badge police blocking access to IETF WG meetings.
In the past it has been amusing watching Hotel staff trying to work
out whether or not the people walking in towards the meetings were
derelicts off the street or nerds -- notably @ Wardman Park Hotel
and @ Philly. But restricting access to WG meetings? Nah.
Do I think the introduction of badge police to control access to IETF
WG meetings is a big deal? DAMN RIGHT.
Is this really the case now? If so, I must have missed the discussion.
all the best,
Lawrence
On 11 Nov 2010, at 14:58, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Samuel Weiler wrote:
Thank you very much for the timely response.
"Why might it be a good idea?" is not the question of the week. The question
of the week is about process and transparency. And, apparently, whether we
allow the local host (or hotel) to dictate how we run our meetings.
*** Ole: See response from Henk and myself.
I cannot tell you at this stage if this was a hotel requirement, a host
requirement (as part of their government approval to host this meeting) or a
combination of both.
This is disappointing, if not distressing. I asked the IAOC about this in
private mail on Tuesday morning -- at a normal meeting, surely three days
would be enough time to discern who was responsible and get a clear public
explanation.
Instead, the confusion just keeps growing. Last night, we heard that it is a
host requirement. Now we're apparently not sure if it's the host or the
hotel.
*** Ole: What's the confusion? See previous response. Why does it
matter? Let's split the difference and call it a "local requirement"
I will take this as explanation for why you did not push back on the
host (or hotel) earlier, rather than as an attempt to start a
conversation about the reasonableness of such a change in general.
You have now heard that others think this is a more serious matter.
*** Ole: Yes, I've counted one+one. Out of 1,338 registered attendees.
Given the absence of a credible explanation from the host (or hotel) and
consultation with the community, will the IAOC, as I called for in my earlier
message, please tell the host (or hotel) "we want to have a normal meeting"
and tell the guards to back down?
*** Ole: Why would we do that exactly? What part of this meeting is not
normal?
-- Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf