Re: [79all] IETF Badge

Gonzalo Camarillo <> Fri, 12 November 2010 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51AB93A67F2; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:34:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fa+dElIJrxj6; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:33:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639F63A6878; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:33:53 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7b28ae00000135b-fa-4cdc999ffad3
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C3.39.04955.F999CDC4; Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:34:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:34:23 +0100
Received: from [] ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:34:23 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:34:18 +0800
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hadriel Kaplan <>
Subject: Re: [79all] IETF Badge
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Nov 2010 01:34:23.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[BC4A8CF0:01CB8209]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "" <>, Dave CROCKER <>, Ole Jacobsen <>, Samuel Weiler <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 01:34:02 -0000


Hadriel's point below (the difference between important and unimportant
decisions) is key to this discussion. We do not want the community to
micro-manage unimportant details but definitely want the community to be
involved in important decisions. Since the IOAC thought this was an
unimportant detail, it is normal they did not involve the community. If
this is not an unimportant detail but an important policy instead,
people should explain why so that the IOAC understands the reasons and
involves the community in the future.



On 12/11/2010 1:45 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> I find it hard to believe you guys don't object to the badge checking in particular, but just to the idea that a host/hotel would dictate such a policy without notifying you in advance.
> The host/hotel apparently also decided to have hotel staff pouring our coffee and opening the doors for us, which has happened in the past but not frequently, afaicr.  Yet I don't hear concern that the host/hotel "dictated" a new radical policy of coffee pouring without prior warning.  Why?  Because it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of life, and thus you don't care.  Ergo, you must care about the badge checking in particular.  So let's not pretend otherwise.
> Given the logistics and work required to put these types of events together, and all the minor and major details, does the badge-checking policy "change" really matter??  Personally I think this meeting has gone really smoothly.
> Look on the bright side: at least we didn't have to take trains.  ;)
> -hadriel
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list