Its a long time since I attended a WG where the simple formalisms of "read
the drafts" and "if not participating, please sit at the back" got applied.
I don't feel objectified being combed out like this, It gives me comfort I
can 'audit' a session without impeding real work, and it makes it clearer
the obligations on me if I chose to speak to the mike, ill prepared.
I realize the best course would be not to be in the room if not able to
contribute, but you will (I hope) understand that being close to a meeting
with potential for interest is hard to subsume. Hence, my suggestion more
WG chairs actively canvas who in the room CAN meaningfully discuss, and
prioritize seating accordingly (or at least suggest it)
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:17 AM, <l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
wrote:
There's a distinction between 'privileges some' and 'completely excludes
others'.
But, to give an example, an interesting comparison: a while back we gave
an update on a protocol to an IETF area meeting. We'd written four
interrelated drafts, including discussion of congestion control, exposed it
to a couple of working groups over the course of a couple of years, done
our mailing list work and homework.
A Rather Large Company gave an update on their protocol in that session as
well. They hadn't written an internet draft, or discussed it much on IETF
mailing lists - because to discuss something, you really need an internet
draft as a common frame of reference. But, hey, Big Company, threatening to
deploy and change the world. Much meeting discussion was then given over to
'will you write an internet draft?' and 'have you considered congestion
control?' Not productive use of facetoface time for most. Beneficial to the
company, and possibly to others who would be affected by deployment of this
protocol? Well, yes, so including them was worthwhile, and we need to be
inclusionary and encourage new ideas. But they were privileged by being in
the room. (And I don't think they've written a draft up yet either.
Couldn't find one.)
That is what I mean by privilege. If you can go to meetings, you can skip
a lot of understanding of the IETF through mailing lists.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Loa Andersson [loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu]
Sent: 12 February 2014 13:09
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Subject: Re: calls for discussion
All,
First I agree with Lloyd the misuse of normtive language in mails,
jsut look a bit peculiar and does not carry any weight.
Lloyd,
While it is true that most work in the IETF happens on mailing lists,
and should be taken there as fast as is ever possible, it is not true
that all work is is done on mailing lists. If it did everything in
Note Well that does say anything about things that does not happen on
the mailing lists would be moot.
I hope you don't want to real work coming out of chance meetings in
the corridors of the IETF meeting venue. Consider me walking down the
corridor and by chance happens to start talking to the a bright person
from one of my worst competitors about something that has slowly
emerged in my head over the last few hours. He or she confirms the
same problem has just occurred him/her. After 10 mins of discussion we
have something that can go into a draft.
Do you seriously say that we should be stopped for writing the draft,
just because our discussion took place face to face, rather than on
a mailing list?
/Loa
On 2014-02-12 19:26, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
Starting an idea in the meeting privileges only those who are in the
room.
The work of the IETF is on the mailing lists.
You MUST stop using normative language in emails. It carries no weight.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam
Baryun [
abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 12 February 2014 10:16
To: Randy Bush
Cc: IETF Disgust
Subject: Re: calls for discussion
On 2/12/14, Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
we waste immense amounts of time of the literate in a hopeless attempt
to insert clue into the lazy or illiterate.
The drafts are requested on the lists to be presented and all have
same chance to present or object to a presentation, chairs SHOULD only
put the request on the list and see priorities and agreements from the
WG.
just say a hard no to "i want to present draft-..." has your draft been
discussed on the mailing list and has shown serious divergence of views
such that facetime is really needed?
No, there can be a chance to start discussions in meetings as well. I
recommend you object the drafts that you think is a waste of your time
and discuss with your WGs, without throwing vegetables.
AB
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_at_)mail01(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com
Senior MPLS Expert loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64