Re: IESG's support

stev@ftp.com Mon, 10 April 1995 15:21 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04086; 10 Apr 95 11:21 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04082; 10 Apr 95 11:21 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07820; 10 Apr 95 11:21 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04069; 10 Apr 95 11:21 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04065; 10 Apr 95 11:21 EDT
Received: from wd40.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07794; 10 Apr 95 11:21 EDT
Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:21:54 -0400
Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:21:54 -0400
Received: from stev.d-cell.ftp.com by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA29819; Mon, 10 Apr 95 11:19:40 EDT
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 95 11:19:40 EDT
Message-Id: <9504101519.AA29819@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
To: kalin@terena.nl
Subject: Re: IESG's support
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: stev@ftp.com
Cc: 0001050002@mcimail.com, lhl@cs.wisc.edu, klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net, bdains@linus.isoc.org, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, isoc-trustees@linus.isoc.org, mo@uunet.uu.net, pvm@isi.edu
X-Orig-Sender: stev@mailserv-d.ftp.com
Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Mon Apr 10 11:19:30 1995]
Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com
Content-Length: 1398

    I would like to complain about the asymmetrical arrangement proposed here.
    
    I do understand the need for the efficiency, but please do not give in to
    easily. With all that noise about openness of IETF one should be able to
    tolerate some proportion of us fully-dressed people, including the tie, in
    addition to you.
    
    If absolutely necessary, I can even bring my blue jeans and a T shirt along.
    

having beenm to both meetings, i woudl like to suggest that keeping
the average INET person out of the average IETF meeting is a good
idea. this has nothing to do with open-ness or fairness. the IETF
meetings are open. the INET attendies can go any time they pay the
correct fee.  the point here is that the INET person is there to
become elightened WRT basic internet technologies. the IETF meetings
are set up to design these technologies.  

assume that, as an example, there was a convention of the Airline
passengers association meeting co-located with a convention of
aerospace engineers showing up to argue about the fine points of
fluid dynamics. while the engineers have "open meetings", there is a
hurdle to jump of getting to the location. while the passengers
association certainly benefits from the engineers meeting, do you
really want the engineers explaining why a wing produces lift to them
in the middle of trying to design the Son of Concorde?