[79all] IETF Badge

sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Fri, 12 November 2010 02:13 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@harvard.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26A728C10B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:13:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.308
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.291, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EdAGe5LMUo6B for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124203A67EE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:13:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id D24D2607D21; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:14:04 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: [79all] IETF Badge
Message-Id: <20101112021404.D24D2607D21@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:14:04 -0500 (EST)
From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:13:35 -0000

Some history

Back when the IETF decided to charge for meetings ($100/meeting sometime
in the early 1990s) Steve Coya said that the IETF would never check
badges to block people from meetings.

That, I think, was to indicate that people who could not afford to pay
could still attend.

But that was a very long time ago, and a few hundred dollars per meeting ago

I find it hard to get too bent out of shape that the IETF has joined the
world that every other conference I have gone to in the last 20 years
has been in, and I find it hard to get too bent out of shape about a
change in this level of meeting implementation detail not being subject
to a discussion on the IETF list (there have been many other, much more 
important, changes in meeting implementation which have not, and properly
so, been discussed by the community - e.g. the many tools.ietf.org support
tools, the additional remote participation abilities etc)

I find it amusing that there is more traffic on this topic on the IETF
discussion list than any issue that anyone in the world would see as an
actual issue.  This seems to be this year's cookie crises.  

To me, that means that this meeting is going rather well.