RE: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

<michael.dillon@bt.com> Mon, 21 July 2008 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6CAC3A694B; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
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 E4E173A68A5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-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 KWvy5KhCc4ZU for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.smtp.bt.com (smtp2.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.150]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E682C3A6801 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.62]) by smtp2.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:31:31 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:31:31 +0100
Message-ID: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC07302FE1@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <377471DF-CE6D-4D45-A09D-E5BE780FEAE6@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73
Thread-Index: AcjrYvJCaGApEnJeRtS6ltS0vuPF4gAFRchA
From: michael.dillon@bt.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2008 21:31:31.0132 (UTC) FILETIME=[24389FC0:01C8EB79]
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-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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> "Teleconferencing", in this context, includes any 
> communications vehicle that enables participants to meet 
> without having to travel, and which they all agree to. Could 
> be telephone, skype with or without video, Marratech, Webex, 
> Citrix, or anything else as long as they all agree.

Sounds to me like it means "any technology which requires the Internet"
since email functions quite nicely using non-Internet technologies like
UUCP. Why does the IETF have rules which hamper using the Internet to
develop Internet-based protocols?

And then use that as an excuse to lengthen the face-to-face meetings
making it even harder for people who are not IETF fanatics, or funded by
their vendor-employer to attend them?

The IETF really needs to sit up and take notice of how other development
projects leverage the Internet, such as the many open-source software
projects. I'm not saying that all WGs should be forced to start using
blogs or IM chat sessions or whatever. Rather, I think the IETF should
formally get rid of that teleconference rule, and actively encourage WGs
to experiment with new ways of working that leverage Internet
technologies, and which reduce the amount of time needed in face-to-face
meetings.

That would be worthy of the title "experiment".

--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf