Hi,
At 07:22 13-02-2012, George, Wes wrote:
[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?
I suggest using the example. BTW, I understand what you meant by
"XX". See comment below.
[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.
You could look at the content in terms of your target audience. The
draft mentions "host event organizers that may not have much
familiarity with the IETF". The first two sections are more like
Last Call material to give IETF participants a sense of why the draft
is intended to be published as a RFC.
The intent was not to be snarky.
Let's assume that you are a host and you have to find the
information. You can either take the points to cover "as-is" or
you'll try and identify what information is important, what is useful
and what is nice to have. As an example, how to get to the venue
might be important; how to does one differentiate between tap water
and bottled in a restaurant is nice to have.
[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.
I don't have write access to the Wiki.
[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.
I agree that the meeting wiki is only as good as the level of contribution.
[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.
To a layperson person, a "Flash" web site is as good as any other web
site. I understand your point about translating content. My point
was more about the information which the "average" attendee would
look for. See below.
[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.
The point was not about whether you have attempted to get
feedback. I mentioned how you can get the kind of feedback to make
the document more accessible to the target audience.
[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.
I clicked on the link on the IETF web site for visa information and I
got to http://www.ietf.org/meeting/83/t-shirt-design-contest.html :-)
Visa information tends to be an issue for some participants. The
IAOC provides minimal information as it is not a travel agency yet.
:-) As a quick comment, people might generally look for the
following information:
(i) Do I need a visa for the country (list of countries for
which a visa is required)
(ii) List of embassies
(iii) How long does the processing of the visa application generally take
(iv) Can I get a letter of invitation from the local host
(v) Requirements for visa application
[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."
A tourist might look for the following topics:
(a) Planning your trip
(b) Transportation
(c) Health
(d) Safety
(e) Electricity
(f) Communication
(g) Accommodation
(h) Climate
(i) Money
(j) Where to eat
(k) Language
Everyone can find at least some information to get around if the
destination is considered as international. If the destination is
considered as non-international travel, some of the information may
be considered as obvious.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf