Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Samuel Weiler <> Thu, 11 November 2010 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC78E3A6A3F; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:00:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bhDKkMoHwwu7; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5473A6938; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oABE0U1T085148; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:00:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from
Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id oABE0Ubi085145; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:00:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: weiler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:00:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Samuel Weiler <>
To: Ole Jacobsen <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 ( []); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:00:31 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:00:04 -0000

Thank you very much for the timely response.

> *** Ole: I don't see the items listed as being "at odds" with 
> anything, they are simply reasons why it might be a good idea to 
> have a badge policy, but:

"Why might it be a good idea?" is not the question of the week.  The 
question of the week is about process and transparency.  And, 
apparently, whether we allow the local host (or hotel) to dictate how
we run our meetings.

> I cannot tell you at this stage if this was a hotel requirement, a 
> host requirement (as part of their government approval to host this 
> meeting) or a combination of both.

This is disappointing, if not distressing.  I asked the IAOC about 
this in private mail on Tuesday morning -- at a normal meeting, surely 
three days would be enough time to discern who was responsible and get 
a clear public explanation.

Instead, the confusion just keeps growing.  Last night, we heard that 
it is a host requirement.  Now we're apparently not sure if it's the 
host or the hotel.

> To be clear, we did not have a discussion in the IAOC about this in 
> advance of the meeting.

Thank you for being clear that this change did not originate with the 
IAOC.  That helps scope the discussion.  (And, contrary to my 
statement above, it does offer some clarity.)

> I consider it a /minor/ annoyance... I prefer to leave this to the 
> secrtariat and the local host as a matter of implementation detail.

I will take this as explanation for why you did not push back on the 
host (or hotel) earlier, rather than as an attempt to start a 
conversation about the reasonableness of such a change in general.

You have now heard that others think this is a more serious matter.

Given the absence of a credible explanation from the host (or hotel) 
and consultation with the community, will the IAOC, as I called for in 
my earlier message, please tell the host (or hotel) "we want to have a 
normal meeting" and tell the guards to back down?

-- Sam