> I hate to argue with Randy's common sense but I don't think this
> works. There are always people who can't get travel authorisation
> until very late, or whatever, among those who are absolutely needed
> (i.e. document authors etc.). So we would need rules about who gets in
> regardless of the
> Randy Bush wrote:
> ...
> > the goal is not to become large, the goal is to maintain quality
> >
> > but one does not want to disenfranchise any particular constituency
> >
> > so nangog gets space for about 500 people, allows just that many to
> > register, and it's first register first
Workshops with restricted attendance often seem to have a two-tiered
policy: authors/panelists first, rest later on a space-available basis.
This unfortunately, for the IETF, has obvious gaming potential which the
I-D editor is not likely to appreciate. Relying on drafts to be
discussed at a WG do
Date:Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:52:19 -0600
From:Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I hate to argue with Randy's common sense but I don't think this
| works. There are always people who can't get travel authorisation
| until very la
I hate to argue with Randy's common sense but I don't think this
works. There are always people who can't get travel authorisation
until very late, or whatever, among those who are absolutely needed
(i.e. document authors etc.). So we would need rules about who gets in
regardless of the limit, and
> Dan> [Dan] Why would a color coded badge-per-day system would be
> an
> Dan> administrative nightmare? Like Monday = green, Tuesday =
> Yellow,...,Blue =
> Dan> the whole week. I do not think that this would require more badge
> screening
> Dan> than today. This would cert
as no one has mentioned this approach, i figured to add to the non-
productive confusion as follows:
nanog had an analogous crowding issue. the organizers looked at the problem
and said
the goal is not to become large, the goal is to maintain quality
but one does not want to disenfranchise
> "Dan" == Dan Romascanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan>[Dan] Why would a color coded badge-per-day system would be an
Dan> administrative nightmare? Like Monday = green, Tuesday = Yellow,...,Blue =
Dan> the whole week. I do not think that this would require more badge s
> > I know that in the past we have discouraged the notion of a per day
> > attendance fee because it is an administrative nightmare. Requiring
> > additional staff to stand at each meeting room to screen badges, ...
> [Dan] Why would a color coded badge-per-day system would be an
> admini
> I know that in the past we have discouraged the notion of a per day
> attendance fee because it is an administrative nightmare. Requiring
> additional staff to stand at each meeting room to screen badges, ...
[Dan] Why would a color coded badge-per-day system would be an
administrative
> Yes, some individuals espouse unfriendly opinions about newbies. The
> subject line of this thread is a painfully good example.
uh, my use of the term "bottom feeders" had nothing to do with newbies.
Keith
>
> As for the rest ... yes, I think new people need to gather a few clues
> but it doesn't take many. I guess the first clue is to realize how much
> of your time making real contributions takes. If you're willing to do
> real work I think you're accepted immediately -- especially if your work
On 21 Dec 2000 at 14:24 -0500, Ken Hornstein apparently wrote:
> >Being open does not mean that new arrivals are free from learning the
> >special handshakes and the technical peculiarities of our work; they are
>
> Hm, my mistake, I guess. I read on the IETF web page that the IETF didn't
> hav
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Ken Hornstein wrote:
>
> > That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
> > an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
> > necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
> > overcome it if you're a
>>That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
>>an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
>>necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
>>overcome it if you're a newbie.
>
>Since the IETF professes to be open, it's a
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
> an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
> necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
> overcome it if you're a newbie.
Bo
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:25:19 -0500, you wrote:
>but I do agree that to the extent we try to discourage clueless
>folks from coming, we need to make sure that we don't filter out
>clueful people in the process.
Hmm, terminology is wrong - clueless may mean doesn't know, but it
does not mean unwil
Ken Hornstein wrote:
> That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
> an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
> necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
> overcome it if you're a newbie.
Unfortunately, it's har
At 11:58 AM 12/21/00 -0500, Ken Hornstein wrote:
>That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
>an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that such a thing is
>necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
>overcome it if you're a newbie.
>I think it's still the case that someone who demonstrates knowledge of
>the background material and understanding of how the Internet works is
>quite welcome at IETF.
That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
an "old-boy" network in operation. I'm not saying that s
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
> > Hard to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are
> > both on the web site. Maybe we need some text on the registration page
> > pointing to those and suggesting strongly that people should read them
> > before typing in their cred
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> maybe the registration form should have a short quiz on material from
> these documents, which must be filled out before the form is considered
> complete. and if not completed successfully the prospective
> registrant is warned that he may be wasting
At 1:54 PM -0600 12/20/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Hard to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are
>both on the web site.
It is important to note that the Tao is being substantially upgraded
and has lots of new material specifically aimed at dealing with some
of the prob
I think it's still the case that someone who demonstrates knowledge of
the background material and understanding of how the Internet works is
quite welcome at IETF. Clueful people are in short supply, it's usually
quite easy to distinguish them from less clueful people, and clueful
folks that s
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:54:22 CST, Brian E Carpenter said:
> Hard to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are
> both on the web site. Maybe we need some text on the registration page
> pointing to those and suggesting strongly that people should read them
> before typing in the
% > > We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come
% > > back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home
% > > unhappy.
% > >
% > > Brian
% >
% > so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
% > different than it is, and g
> Hard to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are
> both on the web site. Maybe we need some text on the registration page
> pointing to those and suggesting strongly that people should read them
> before typing in their credit card number.
maybe the registration form should
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come
> > back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home
> > unhappy.
>
> interesting idea.
>
> so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
> different than
Michael,
As I said, the Secretariat has the facts, but I think you will find that the complete
data support the statememt that we have a high proportion of newbies. Which is
not a bad thing in itself, but is a bad thing if they don't become contributors.
Jeffrey Altmann expressed it very well.
> The attitude being promulgated by the majority of these posts,
> whether justified or not, is most likely to lead (IMO)
> to IETF meetings populated by two distinct groups of people:
>
> 1) Old timers
> 2) The clueless masses
in my experience, clueful newbies are quite welcome at IETF, and
ver
it's interesting that you chose to examine attendees according to their
(presumed) "companies", when IETF doesn't recognize such affiliation.
however it's hardly surprising if successful IETF folks gravitate to
companies who are willing to support such work.
Keith
A couple of years ago I did a study on IETF attendance - the data was
gathered from the IETF web site looking at email addresses for folks attending.
Of the 15 or so ompanies that were examined almost all attendees were
almost always "repeaters". I cannot be more specific because the report
still
> > We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come
> > back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home
> > unhappy.
>
> interesting idea.
>
> so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
> different than it is, and going ho
> The properties of this sort of democratic process are well-known and
> well-understood. As any student of the Soviet Union will tell you,
> this is precisely how the Old Guard maintained control of the CP.
The question comes down to "why are you attending an IETF meeting?"
I attend the meet
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:00:59PM -0800, John Beck wrote:
> Keith> I honestly don't know how many of the 'lurkers' in any particular room
> Keith> are actively participating in some WG versus how many are lurking in
> Keith> all of them. but I do know that a large number of lurkers is harmful
> K
I think you misheard me, or I misspoke. I would be the last person to suggest
we should turn away new people. But many people come to exactly one meeting
(I can't quote statistics, but the Secretariat knows the numbers), and this
seems all wrong to me - the IETF only makes sense for sustained part
> We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come
> back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home
> unhappy.
interesting idea.
so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
different than it is, and going home disappointed,
At 10:10 -0600 12/20/00, Robert G. Ferrell wrote:
> >We *should* worry about people
> >who come to the IETF once and never come back - because they probably came
> >to the wrong meeting, and went home unhappy.
>
>Well, you've certainly convinced me never to attend a meeting.
>
>The attitude bei
>We *should* worry about people
>who come to the IETF once and never come back - because they probably came
>to the wrong meeting, and went home unhappy.
Well, you've certainly convinced me never to attend a meeting.
The attitude being promulgated by the majority of these posts,
whether justif
I agree with John and Bob Braden on this. We shouldn't worry about
people who lurk for a few meetings and then participate, or people who
lurk in some WGs and participate in others. We *should* worry about people
who come to the IETF once and never come back - because they probably came
to the wro
Keith> I honestly don't know how many of the 'lurkers' in any particular room
Keith> are actively participating in some WG versus how many are lurking in
Keith> all of them. but I do know that a large number of lurkers is harmful
Keith> to a WG's ability to conduct a useful meeting.
How so? If t
let me say that I'm fully in agreement with those who think that our WGs
need broad input, and who want to encourage more cross-group fertilization.
I just don't happen to believe that merely paying the meeting fees
entitles one to a seat in the room.
I honestly don't know how many of the 'l
42 matches
Mail list logo
