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

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 05:41 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 CF2B121F87FA for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.777
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.777 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.569, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 lk6qaSu20ovF for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EC821F87F9 for <81attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-CheckPoint: {4E40D632-0-1B221DC2-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 p795g3LC032558; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 08:42:03 +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 08:42:03 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 08:41:58 +0300
Thread-Topic: [81attendees] diverse meeting locations (was: are we getting complacent? Good job!)
Thread-Index: AcxWVxBSiuexF1OiRJeb1joZCZ/INg==
Message-ID: <11365A30-937F-4984-BDE5-2C761BF2EBBD@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> <0339E737-3061-45BF-9A4F-E787EF45D48D@checkpoint.com> <11DA963A-B3B7-4939-A9A5-AEA03FE9DB7D@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <11DA963A-B3B7-4939-A9A5-AEA03FE9DB7D@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_11365A30937F4984BDE52C761BF2EBBDcheckpointcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "81attendees@ietf.org" <81attendees@ietf.org>, Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.ac.kr>
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 05:41:53 -0000

On Aug 9, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
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".

"Who has read the draft?"

four hands go up

"Out of those, who thinks this is useful work?"

four hands go up

"Who thinks this is a bad idea?"

no hands go up

That, unfortunately, is what consensus sometimes looks like.   You have to gauge who's actually participating before you start looking for consensus.

Or from a session in QC:

"Who has read the draft?"

Four hands go up

"Who has read the draft, and is NOT a co-author or WG chair?"

No hands go up