Responses to a couple of points that people have made:
From: "t.p." <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>
I started, some years ago, with a meeting, because the culture that I
was used to was that conferences, be they annual or triannual, were
where things really happened and that e-mail filled in the gaps in
between (and I think that this remains the case in other, related,
fora). That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says
This is all true. Any decision come to during a meeting session must
be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list. The reason for this
is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending
the meetings and paying the associated expenses.
From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
The feeling I kept receiving here is that there is a kernel of IETFers
who still believe that IETF is some kind of ivory tower that exists by
itself, for itself and is self-sufficient.
First, I think you are not using the correct term. "Ivory tower" is
used specifically to mean an excessively academic or theoretical
approach. In the IETF's case, it is considerably more practical and
"hands-on" than other organizations. In particular, contrast can be
drawn with the ITU's OSI networking protocols. I think a better term
for the concept is "insular", meaning "isolated" or "island-like".
The IETF is one more component of the complex ecosystem of Internet
governance.
However, I think you are correct in that the IETF is insular, that it
does not concern itself much with other parts of the "ecosystem of
Internet governance". Partly this is historical, in that there wasn't
much "Internet governance" when the IETF was founded. And for a long,
formative period (15 years or so), the only other global element of
the networking world was the ITU's OSI effort, which was directly
competitive.
But to a considerable degree, the IETF confines itself to aspects of
networking which do not greatly intersect with "Internet governance".
We design and implement protocols.
The connection with the larger ecosystem is more done by the Internet
Society.
- What is a reasonable goal in terms of participation, so that having a
meeting in Latin America is actually meaningful?: "X attendees from the
region and Y people actively participating in mailing lists and
contributing text"
Success can probably be judged simply by attendance numbers -- does
the meeting have an attendance at least as large as meetings in more
traditional places (within statistical error)?
- After that, set the goal: "The IETF will hold a meeting in Latin
America in the next four to five years"
- What does the IETF to do that?: "The IETF needs partners to pledge X $
in sponsorship funds", or whatever else.
As far as I can tell from others' postings:
A venue needs to be found that has adequate space and tolerance of our
networking needs.
Sponsors need to be found to cover the costs that the standard meeting
fee will not cover.
The typical attendee budget (air fare, hotel, meeting) needs to be no
higher than in traditional locations. (This can probably be ensured
with sufficient sponsor support.)
Air travel to the location should not be substantially longer or
inconvenient than to traditional locations (because employers consider
employee's time to be more expensive than direct expenses).
Dale