ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call: <draft-george-travel-faq-03.txt> (IETF meeting attendees' Frequently Asked (travel) Questions) to Informational RFC

2012-02-13 09:23:46
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of SM

In Section 1:

   "more efficiently than waiting until someone sends an email to the
    XXattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org list in the days leading up to the 
meeting."

The XX is ambiguous.
[WEG] Well, it was intended to be generic (a variable to represent multiple 
numbers). Are you saying ambiguous as in "this intent is unclear, use a 
different method to represent this generically" or "you should use a specific 
number as an example, e.g. 83attendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"?
Would "the meeting-specific attendees email list" be better?

The draft is written from am IETF perspective for an IETF audience.
[WEG] It was written by an IETF person, in the IETF's process for managing 
documents. Within those constraints, it was meant to assume very little about 
what people know about IETF such that it could be useful to a non-IETF 
audience. If there's a point to this comment other than to be snarky, I'm 
missing it.

Does http://wikitravel.org/en/Paris provide answers to some of the
questions in this draft?
[WEG] Probably. This draft is not about evaluating sources of information to be 
provided for individual and specific IETF meetings. It is meant to be generic. 
I'd encourage you to post that link to the Paris IETF's wiki.

    "but that results in hundreds of people spending their time
    searching, which is not very efficient."

If hundreds of people spent their time searching, there would have
been more information on
http://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/doku.php  Or is it
not efficient for people to share the information they have found?
[WEG] no one can force those who find an answer to their question (via whatever 
method) to post it to the wiki. The meeting wiki is only as good as its level 
of contribution, and this document isn't making commentary on that problem. 
This is simply noting that lots of attendees need a similar set of information.

   "no matter how good online translation is getting, some of the most
    informative sites may be difficult for non-native speakers to"

Is this about informative sites being difficult for non-native
speakers or for people from a specific part of the world?
[WEG] I think this is pretty self-explanatory taken in the context of the 
preceding sentences, but I'll attempt to clarify. When one is attempting to do 
research about a place one is planning to visit, if the site with the best 
information is only available in the local language, and half of the site is 
flash or graphical text buttons, sending it to translate.google is not going to 
translate the text contained in flash or images, which may make the site 
difficult or impossible to use. The source and destination language/region is 
immaterial. This is simply defining a practical matter associated with language 
barriers online.

I suggest that the author seeks feedback from people who use English as a
second language.
[WEG] The author has sought and received feedback from the IETF list multiple 
times prior to last call, and again now. One might be forgiven for assuming 
that there are a few nonnative English speakers among the subscribers of said 
list who have read the document. If those who use English as a second language 
have text to provide, he'll gladly accept it. Otherwise, maligning the document 
or its author because it attempts to cover language issues but was written by 
an native English speaker is not particularly productive.

Visa requirements is a one-liner whereas food considerations are
discussed in several paragraphs.
[WEG] The main posting on the IETF site regarding the specific meeting includes 
a link to one or more Visa information sites. IETF has been providing links to 
Visa information for years, as it is far more critical to foreign attendance 
than any of the other items discussed in this document. Therefore I didn't 
spend a lot of time on it. The only part of the currently-provided visa 
information that I have seen complaints about is when the combination of the 
source and destination countries' embassies don't play nicely together and 
Visas take too long to be practical. That is a much different problem. However, 
more than one person has commented about the limited text with regards to 
visas, so I'll attempt to bolster the Visa discussion slightly, but suggested 
text is welcome.

 Section 3.3 is labelled
International considerations.  The entire document is about
international considerations.
[WEG] After reviewing what is in this section based on your comment, I'd argue 
the other way. Like the rest of the document, a large portion of it is not 
specific to international travel and may vary by region and municipality within 
the same country. I'm open to suggestions as to an alternate heading for 
section 3.3 that is more descriptive than "other."

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and 
any printout.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf