IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 14 August 2013 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF6C21F9E37 for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 wAndGtxRaRSB for <87attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4539B21F9DBE for <87attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUgujoEJ4AROEapH28BePrvoqllx1TeF2@postini.com; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:34:57 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9DF1B8294 for <87attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8523B19006D for <87attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:34:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:34:56 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1793.4\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <9D5C64C2-1187-42A7-B237-8AAEC4810D57@isoc.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:34:53 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <C19DDA99-B2E9-41F2-B1DF-D963DD0A667A@nominum.com>
References: <C4413723-4E83-44D8-967D-C61564F33843@isoc.org> <CAKKJt-dCsJKzkuWmtPYaLct_9zzbe2HCXBB52QNerC4hHKaqWQ@mail.gmail.com> <9D5C64C2-1187-42A7-B237-8AAEC4810D57@isoc.org>
To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1793.4)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:39:49 -0700
Cc: "87attendees@" <ietf.orgattendees87attendees@ietf.org>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [87attendees] [87all] IETF 87 Berlin Meeting Review
X-BeenThere: 87attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <87attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/87attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:87attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/87attendees>, <mailto:87attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:35:04 -0000

On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote:
> That's a good question.  Do others feel the same way?  Of course, as in Orlando, they asked us to select ones not to move and we refused.  There are no VIPs.  We asked them to make the selection a random one.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

That said, there are several problems with this proposal.   First, how do we know where people are coming from?   They may not be coming from home, and they may have registered with a corporate address a continent away from home.   Second, what is happening the next day?  If I'd been walked Saturday night, I would have faced an early morning with less sleep and a longer walk.   A non-IESG, non-IAB participant likely would have slept in.   So I think singling Spencer out to be walked because he lives in Dallas might actually be a bad outcome, although I agree that we shouldn't treat him (or me) like a VIP either.

I tend to agree that letting the hotel choose randomly is a better idea than playing favorites, but of course the hotel will choose non-rewards-program or low-tier rewards program members over others, so that could produce a less than desirable outcome.   Probably the most egalitarian outcome would result from the ISOC doing a random drawing.   But honestly, is it worth all the effort?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email