Re: [78attendees] We gotta stop meeting like this (was: We'll meet again...)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 03:43:19PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> How did you spread the word on this?

I sent this message to the IETF list:

    http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&k1=933&k2=52271 

and also this one to the apparea list:

    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg01589.html

The ADs also forwarded the first of those to the apparea list.

> I think you have to have an evangelist who shows up for sessions
> where interested parties might be lurking, and gives a very short
> presentation at each.  If nobody is evangelizing, our noise filters
> are too well-tuned to allow us to hear announcements like this from
> working groups at which we are not regulars.

But this actually suggests _again_ that the supposed benefit of having
everyone at the same meeting is now swamped by the sheer size of it.
I also stumble across things at IETF meetings.  But I wonder very much
whether the best way to get people to interact in that informal way is
to fly 1500 of our best friends to some remote place and hope that the
right people run into each other.

Maybe what we need, instead of the IETF daily dose, is the slashdot of
the IETF: a sort of news ticker of what interesting things are going
on there.  Now, one could argue that the I-D announcements ought to be
that, but lots of I-Ds are now cleanup, updates of previous
versions. &c.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say, "Poor us, we held a party and nobody
came."  I'm sort of relieved: if nobody wants to tell us what problem
we have to solve, then we can feel comfortable saying that there's
nothing to do.  Good!  No more work for the WG!

A 

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]
Shinkuro, Inc.