IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 10 a.m.

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mon, 11 July 2016 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 3AA8C12D0E3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ecs.soton.ac.uk
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 8BKYRiWdWGAg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E17012D589 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6BJfM5A026573; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:41:22 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk u6BJfM5A026573
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1468266082; bh=8/Bh+ZYgOO9+EhXms/uPVF+i1vg=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=gGqelKtQh/OLc9vCozPilC9BV1horyjTd9OQpmSQfEFm+eP7APrYpI4YRfCk+MRa1 LYJVrnzcUBhbPav/M3Ax7J5e7wYIV7o0SlQCTpxYiypGFPZ4i/51Y/rIMndE8xQevS A7wqrlFSlxzTS6wHrLSeVoY2xJ6xJjTtgdcsrGCs=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:401]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:250:56ff:fea0:68da]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s6AKfM2925112209mj ret-id none; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:41:22 +0100
Received: from 20010a88d51011.ipv6.customer.clara.net (20010a88d51011.ipv6.customer.clara.net [IPv6:2001:a88:d510:1101:a5de:6888:c656:9c03] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6BJfGQL006667 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:41:16 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: 10 a.m.
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <99B2D6A4AFD1ED6333D9332C@JcK-HP8200>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:42:03 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|db49ba1856aff823fc02b0d087b58dfas6AKfM03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|D3D84785-4700-4674-AF88-558D51E6CDCD@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <ffde10f3-3084-3267-04bd-e052d120bc01@gmail.com> <41f9104e-335f-b2a9-3ca8-9d5b0e7de3b6@gmail.com> <64DB4F404F7B3FD5A007BEA2@JcK-HP8200> <86428765-1C82-4434-B6DA-89E34DB599E2@piuha.net> <42F9A871-3D50-4374-93C4-3B45A248C3ED@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|da5a10cfc0197d092106b3d9438f7afbs6AKLf03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|42F9A871-3D50-4374-93C4-3B45A248C3ED@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <99B2D6A4AFD1ED6333D9332C@JcK-HP8200> <D3D84785-4700-4674-AF88-558D51E6CDCD@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=s6AKfM292511220900; tid=s6AKfM2925112209mj; client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=3:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u6BJfM5A026573
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KBUZa8Bd1DcJOJq1TUYBFDOe7JQ>
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: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:41:30 -0000

> On 11 Jul 2016, at 20:34, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> --On Monday, July 11, 2016 20:22 +0100 Tim Chown
> <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>>> On 11 Jul 2016, at 19:07, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have some personal opinions about these things, but
>>> ultimately, what does the community want to do?
>> 
>> Can we make sure this question is asked explicitly in the
>> post-meeting survey? That would allow feedback to be collated
>> in an efficient way.
> 
> Remember that post-meeting surveys historically do not reach
> anyone who does not attend in person.  To the extent to which
> this is ultimately a strategic decision that affects the
> community (and, to some extent, who can participate effectively
> in the IETF), everyone needs to be asked (and, as Dave Crocker
> points out, asking in a plenary doesn't do the job either0.

Sure, but asking on the survey gets a valuable indication of the impact of those who did attend, and who experienced the experiment.

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email