Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk> Thu, 11 November 2010 23:31 UTC
Return-Path: <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
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 B893C3A6969; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:31:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6]
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 M2DxTzMS5m7L; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:31:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from insensate.co.uk (ghost.insensate.co.uk [213.152.49.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E983A677D; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:31:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4AA18E1539; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:32:25 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Lawrence Conroy <lconroy@insensate.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011110651350.18556@pita.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 23:32:25 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CB5220E4-7D63-410E-93AC-20E3BC48CD87@insensate.co.uk>
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> <Pine.GSO.4.63.1011110651350.18556@pita.cisco.com>
To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: iaoc@ietf.org, Samuel Weiler <weiler+ietf@watson.org>, The IETF <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 23:31:57 -0000
Hi Ole, folks, That woke me up. I'm not a registered attendee of the Beijing meeting. BUT ... 1. The suggestion this is run like a RIPE meeting seems out of place -- I had thought this was the IETF. 2. In the 14 years I have been going to IETFs, there has been a badge police of varying competence on two main areas; food/refreshments and the terminal room. I have NOT seen badge police blocking access to IETF WG meetings. In the past it has been amusing watching Hotel staff trying to work out whether or not the people walking in towards the meetings were derelicts off the street or nerds -- notably @ Wardman Park Hotel and @ Philly. But restricting access to WG meetings? Nah. Do I think the introduction of badge police to control access to IETF WG meetings is a big deal? DAMN RIGHT. Is this really the case now? If so, I must have missed the discussion. all the best, Lawrence On 11 Nov 2010, at 14:58, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Samuel Weiler wrote: > >> Thank you very much for the timely response. >> >> >> "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. > > *** Ole: See response from Henk and myself. > >> >>> 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. > > *** Ole: What's the confusion? See previous response. Why does it > matter? Let's split the difference and call it a "local requirement" > >> >> 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. > > *** Ole: Yes, I've counted one+one. Out of 1,338 registered attendees. >> >> 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? > > *** Ole: Why would we do that exactly? What part of this meeting is not normal? > >> >> -- Sam >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge mstjohns
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Samuel Weiler
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Peter Saint-Andre
- RE: [79all] IETF Badge Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Dave CROCKER
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Samuel Weiler
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Henk Uijterwaal
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: [79all] IETF Badge Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Dave CROCKER
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Dave CROCKER
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Eliot Lear
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Andrew Allen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Doug Ewell
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Martin Rex
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge SM
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Scott Brim
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Lawrence Conroy
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Dave CROCKER
- Badges and blue sheets Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ray Pelletier
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Andrew Allen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Badges and blue sheets JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Scott Brim
- Re: [IAOC] Badges and blue sheets JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- [79all] IETF Badge Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge James M. Polk
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Randall Gellens
- Re: Badges and blue sheets Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Bjoern A. Zeeb
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [IAOC] [79all] IETF Badge Eric Burger
- Re: [IAOC] [79all] IETF Badge Eliot Lear
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Michael StJohns
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Lou Berger
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Stephen Farrell
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Lawrence Conroy
- RE: [79all] IETF Badge Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Lou Berger
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Lou Berger
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Lou Berger
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Bob Hinden
- Re: [79all] IETF Badge Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr)