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

Ted Lemon <> Thu, 12 August 2010 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DAF33A683A for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.228
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.371, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xI4mhWq79vUW for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492D73A67B3 for <>; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:03:16 PDT
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5D31B82DC; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Thu, 12 Aug 2010 14:03:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:03:02 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <001701cb37ce$2b810ee0$82832ca0$@com> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Andrew Sullivan <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
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 21:02:39 -0000

On Aug 12, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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.

That's related to an idea I've been kicking around in my head for a while--an IETF wiki that would act as a guide to all the work the IETF's done so far, and the work it's doing now.   With the RFC numbers rapidly closing on 6000, there are hundreds of RFCs I definitely should have read, but don't even know about.   But fundamentally, I just completely agree with this idea--I think if we could figure out a way to do it and make it worth reading, yet not too noisy, it might help a lot of efforts along.

> 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!

I've found that the surest way to get people to say what they really feel is to say "okay, nobody's interested in this, we're dropping it."   Sometimes you get lucky and nobody yells at you.