Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Thu, 11 November 2010 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05F73A696B; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:45:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.032
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.032 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.537, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AIcT4z3PcskC; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:45:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ETMail2.acmepacket.com (unknown [216.41.24.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB253A694A; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:45:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by ETMail2.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:45:56 -0500
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:45:55 -0500
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Samuel Weiler <weiler+ietf@watson.org>, Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:45:53 -0500
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Thread-Topic: [79all] IETF Badge
Thread-Index: AcuByEppaorKVjQJQAiwqTaAoPWPgg==
Message-ID: <5C7C4DBE-BD91-4D1E-81F6-571326B527A6@acmepacket.com>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011090344110.46514@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011110103450.3692@pita.cisco.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011110457350.56372@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011110457350.56372@fledge.watson.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAUA=
Cc: "iaoc@ietf.org" <iaoc@ietf.org>, Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:45:29 -0000

I find it hard to believe you guys don't object to the badge checking in particular, but just to the idea that a host/hotel would dictate such a policy without notifying you in advance.

The host/hotel apparently also decided to have hotel staff pouring our coffee and opening the doors for us, which has happened in the past but not frequently, afaicr.  Yet I don't hear concern that the host/hotel "dictated" a new radical policy of coffee pouring without prior warning.  Why?  Because it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of life, and thus you don't care.  Ergo, you must care about the badge checking in particular.  So let's not pretend otherwise.

Given the logistics and work required to put these types of events together, and all the minor and major details, does the badge-checking policy "change" really matter??  Personally I think this meeting has gone really smoothly.

Look on the bright side: at least we didn't have to take trains.  ;)

-hadriel