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