Re: sweets to the sweet, was 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A4A1A039F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:20:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.663
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 ynZS0PiNR1TI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 803471A0393 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 49301 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2015 22:20:19 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 27 Feb 2015 22:20:19 -0000
Date: 27 Feb 2015 22:19:57 -0000
Message-ID: <20150227221957.18361.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: sweets to the sweet, was 'Paywall, ' IETF self-sufficiency
In-Reply-To: <54F0A203.1020209@joelhalpern.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UMykAhiLYwtIiSdWUxiVcyTAaQo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:20:22 -0000

In article <54F0A203.1020209@joelhalpern.com> you write:
>The secretariat has sometimes put out nuts.

A few times they put out tuna sandwiches, and as I recall those tended
to disappear long before the cookies did.

On the assumption that remote participants can make their own
sandwiches, do we have any estimate of what benefits remote
participants bring to our live WG sessions?  I've certainly been to
plenty of sessions where the chair or document author was on the phone
or typing fast into jabber, and the session would have been vastly
less useful if he or she weren't there.

R's,
John