Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 01 April 2016 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 7A69312D65F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9W2Hz81nEvgv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 253B012D52E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA2DBE35; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:31:13 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pX9TEVju0Fyz; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:31:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.12.8.12] (unknown [37.205.61.206]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 575B0BE29; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:31:12 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1459535472; bh=bbuVOITuLFSoJsa1lSSCnLanQ6RajYfF6A/EkOG1/c0=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=2YJJAk+wntlivBEUIpDcpag5uCVQE93qtbwmXvmZdI3He5Bh6CpdYg+6BafPzlLLL 0h8GRoZBO/jv/qKvGVJ/LN2xWYSFIFPIrmoypCUxxxVTtAOTo2AEqEBETr84nnCw6y 7L2FMbc63o1LLK/FKkFbyv+2ikmbTz8cp5guTrAk=
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Remote Participation for IETF 95: Meetecho Details
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <20160330202243.4795.63685.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56FC7167.4010409@nomountain.net> <A4B09E64B56CD0B8C4379A99@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <b982c83c-7de7-516e-11be-0fe7522a93ed@bogus.com> <4C79795B5F7E7C8345C9DC31@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <56FE49A1.2030607@cs.tcd.ie> <6E69E3CBF10E406DF7EB72B0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <73558EB2-C193-4976-80DE-A988DE1BE7AE@piuha.net>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <56FEBE6F.8050308@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:31:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <73558EB2-C193-4976-80DE-A988DE1BE7AE@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CgeII4isxRbsxeRh4EDQnR4nfFcir6r0w"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HuL3bnyW1h2D2otYhZGDQQizgCk>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 Apr 2016 18:31:16 -0000


On 01/04/16 17:12, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Overall IAOC transparency question is worth another thread, I think.

I reckon I do agree with you and John on that. It's pretty
easy for well intended folks to end up not being transparent
and well worth spending a bit of time/effort on seeing if
we can match current expectations met elsewhere whilst also
being efficient with all the myriad of IAOC stuff that is being
done well.

S.