Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we getting complacent? Good job!)

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 05:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF0022800F for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.805
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.596, BAYES_00=-2.599, PLING_QUERY=1.39, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id drt3xmJpYufB for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC5C21F8AFA for <81attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-CheckPoint: {4E40D365-4-1B221DC2-FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p795UDJw031342; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:30:13 +0300
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:30:13 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.ac.kr>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 08:30:05 +0300
Thread-Topic: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we getting complacent? Good job!)
Thread-Index: AcxWVWm5Ev203UR5SiykamuEutGrRQ==
Message-ID: <0339E737-3061-45BF-9A4F-E787EF45D48D@checkpoint.com>
References: <4E34C3A9.2020502@att.com> <A5B9F059BE69461F8008EBECD84A1E67@china.huawei.com> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A6402713C27@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <3DA9637F-1C72-43CB-B040-49F2A6FF26D9@softarmor.com> <4E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net> <CA6BA2FE-13E7-438F-B943-7659A37DB3C5@cisco.com> <744D8CA9-9C01-41A5-A22C-CDF2F4E904EF@fugue.com> <p06240611ca64d0f07a2b@loud.pensive.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108072112110.14256@sjc-vpn7-506.cisco.com> <p06240601ca65afd19752@loud.pensive.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108080830460.18801@sjc-vpn7-506.cisco.com> <CAFgODJfSOHdt-Lzz6bpnHSCSi5kLMu3Yjjh2xU5b35Dtwm5tRw@mail.gmail.com> <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB076127BF@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <CAFgODJecoePK7RX=+4DpwZ93qKE1HvjBq7vPOEkToxy0LfnOXg@mail.gmail.com> <FF871B758C55949D49F19663@PST.JCK.COM> <p0624061aca6632f15733@loud.pensive.org> <CAFgODJcgVbEQt0V7wJ9VOjdUvU=hArCiuyn8dOM7TBqVcS=q=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFgODJcgVbEQt0V7wJ9VOjdUvU=hArCiuyn8dOM7TBqVcS=q=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "81attendees@ietf.org" <81attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we getting complacent? Good job!)
X-BeenThere: 81attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 81 Attendee List <81attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/81attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:81attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 05:29:58 -0000

On Aug 9, 2011, at 4:37 AM, Dae Young KIM wrote:

>   >>maybe we can also mitigate the problem of rooms too crowded
>   >> with "IETF tourists" for people interested in doing work to get in?
> 
> What's wrong for a room to be crowded because a lot of people, perhaps most of them watchers(?), are interested in the topic for whatever reasons they may have?

This is true for BoFs. But working groups should, you know, work.

There are working group sessions with about 8-10 people sitting in the front rows and actually listening, plus 30-40 more sitting in the back reading email and charging their laptops. This creates a false impression of the level of interest in the working group, and it also skews the feel of the room when trying to assess consensus. "Who thinks we should take on this item?" 8 people out of 50 raise their hand. How is the chair or AD to know that 40 of those 50 are just tourists?  It looks like the group has said "meh".