Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 30 July 2008 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <72attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 72attendees-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-72attendees-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDBB43A6BF2; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 72attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4941D3A6BF2 for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MGUTMN5NAh8h for <72attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (mail.mipassoc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8AD3A6B7F for <72attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.22.125] ([130.129.22.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6UEppee019750 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:51:53 -0700
Message-ID: <48908006.4040909@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:51:50 +0100
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
References: <C4B41B20.76FCE%jonne.soininen@nsn.com> <94A3C924-DB32-43B1-B9F5-66C54EA32926@muada.com> <1217326884.3851.12.camel@victoria.pingtel.com> <488F4098.1040106@dcrocker.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0807290926120.17270@pita.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0807290926120.17270@pita.cisco.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/7891/Wed Jul 30 03:03:53 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: 72attendees@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [72attendees] Clarifying Host Responsibilities (was Re: Guestroom Network not under NOC Control)
X-BeenThere: 72attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <72attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/72attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:72attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees>, <mailto:72attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 72attendees-bounces@ietf.org


Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> And we also have consistent history which says that a hosted meeting 
> is much easier on everyone involved (except the host :-) and that

First, we have very, very little experience with meetings that do not have a
"local" host.  So that making generalizations like this is pretty risky.

Second, my recollection of the one or two meetings we've had without hosts was
that they went well.


> hosts typically want some say in where the meeting is held. If your 
> headquarters is in say, Philadelphia, you can recruit a lot of 
> "volunteers" and run back to the office and borrow a printer, hub, 
> switch, paper ream, or what have you.

And a new venue requires lots of additional volunteers, in order to figure out
the new things and fix the new problems.



> This works well, and while I agree that having a few "hub" locations 
> would be good, I also know that it isn't easy to find a willing host
> for a "repeating" location.

That's based on the idea that the 'host' needs to be associated with the venue.
  They don't.

DE-COUPLE THE TWO ISSUES.

(A side-benefit is that this makes it plausible to have multiple hosts for the
event, with each able to pay a smaller amount...)


> The new location syndrome also has good sides such as permitting more
> participants from a given local region.

That was important in the mid-90s.  It isn't any more, in terms of getting IETF
work done.

The core question that was put forward during one of these discussions -- by
Fred Baker while he was Chair, I think -- was:  What helps get IETF work done?

I think that's the right question.

A venue that is remote, expensive, unreliable, or otherwise problematic does not
help the IETF do its work.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
72attendees mailing list
72attendees@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/72attendees