Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 05 December 2012 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB0021F8CCB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 08:24:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yaYc+2e678qH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 08:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA4D21F8CB6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 08:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (adsl-67-127-190-125.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.190.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qB5GOtoW023172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 08:24:56 -0800
Message-ID: <50BF754A.2080107@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 08:24:42 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com>
Subject: Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
References: <50BE3721.90004@dcrocker.net> <CCE40691.1531%Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com> <CAF4+nEGATcHjM0360Vun1KdxsHabxuSyVRPzsFqo-Ex5eqvJ4w@mail.gmail.com> <999913AB42CC9341B05A99BBF358718D022E0BE8@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <999913AB42CC9341B05A99BBF358718D022E0BE8@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 05 Dec 2012 08:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:24:58 -0000

On 12/5/2012 1:25 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>> It's a question of costs and benefits. The cost of the IETF Announce
>> posting is small. There are not that many of them and I don't find
>> them to be a burden.
>
> How many conference calls as part of working group activities did you
> organize in the last two years?


Hannes, your question is in response to the assertion that the cost of 
adding the IETF Announce list is small.  Ignoring the apparent 
non-sequitor of your response, the nature of your question implies that 
you think it is not small.  Please explain.

At base, you want to treat conference calls according to different rules 
than f2f meetings.  What I haven't seen is a principled explanation from 
you that justifies this.  So:  what are the underlying principles that 
justify treating conference calls as different from other time-specific 
IETF interactions?

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net