IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gendispatch] some thoughts about ietf communication

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 29 July 2021 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A783A2449 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ZtPbP0Gn-cE for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B476F3A242C for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 16TE7fqv018064; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:13:04 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=kk68CJL7fzgKCnZEaRMFe7X+yMuUAwWh+Xctzmjnc+I=; b=HCHoM2o8CnQW29Xzr3WouAHTqutDHcnCeofIh9cQBMSA0dSxHCPhS2yaucRoqr0GlKRd spwNC9m4lXDk7Fao7PPsvP6Hm/wdBbmX6dCADSF1yFT7XzAiK068qqJiLTS/4ZV2hW28 jxXjQs/3VfgOXnoEYOeWn9GgKYoer4QQrE1P3VzuVztJEK7WA3egwu6ZvMWrwUKwMiLE PI6e3gIARirCnIdClwyWOqNw32LImqcWYk0K/gYM4Pu2RRt/BcXMw7MJFfznTi8eJwYH 4e0NYJZgiiUYKclZRQVpbMkY5yz1+0yHq5FW5/MjtGRRqebSSZzk+77UQmYFAsdKSEB/ vg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint8 (a72-247-45-34.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.34] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 3a35gv4n2t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:13:04 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 16TE4XPK008884; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:13:03 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.115]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com with ESMTP id 3a36vk6nfm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:13:03 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.119) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 09:12:58 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.119]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.119]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.023; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 09:12:57 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Thread-Topic: [Gendispatch] some thoughts about ietf communication
Thread-Index: AQHXhF6OpIS8xuV+f0WJWrPqRFnaMKtaD64A
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:12:57 +0000
Message-ID: <D011C9BF-3FFB-4A61-A9CE-C449DF4296B2@akamai.com>
References: <ee2a840d-1837-1e06-647e-1251295c94bb@lear.ch>
In-Reply-To: <ee2a840d-1837-1e06-647e-1251295c94bb@lear.ch>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.51.21071101
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D011C9BF3FFB4A61A9CEC449DF4296B2akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-29_10:2021-07-29, 2021-07-29 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=833 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2107140000 definitions=main-2107290089
X-Proofpoint-GUID: ngBmrPfwGAa-zROlRygR1h67sTdcGb1P
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: ngBmrPfwGAa-zROlRygR1h67sTdcGb1P
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-07-29_10:2021-07-29, 2021-07-29 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=770 clxscore=1011 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2107140000 definitions=main-2107290089
X-Agari-Authentication-Results: mx.akamai.com; spf=${SPFResult} (sender IP is 72.247.45.34) smtp.mailfrom=rsalz@akamai.com smtp.helo=prod-mail-ppoint8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/24ZaRRYBE9P-QeHskrTnKqOuwKA>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] some thoughts about ietf communication
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:13:25 -0000

I think the biggest problem with previous plenaries is that it is too easy for the general public to get on a soapbox, er the microphone line.

I think think that the plenary that happened a 12 hours ago, as well as the other “remote only” ones, went much better. I attribute it to the fact that getting up to speak was much harder, but maybe there’s another reason.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email