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

Andrew Sullivan <> Thu, 12 August 2010 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9D93A6995 for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.518
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.081, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ylu8kQKJ0wK for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCD43A6962 for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 079621ECB41D; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:21:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:21:34 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <001701cb37ce$2b810ee0$82832ca0$@com> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [78attendees] We gotta stop meeting like this (was: We'll meet again...)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 78 attendees list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:21:01 -0000

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: 

and also this one to the apparea list:

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!


Andrew Sullivan
Shinkuro, Inc.