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