Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 04 December 2012 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
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 49E5F21F8BC4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:42:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yYVktdVU2oFV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB13821F8BC1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:42:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c13so7490941ieb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:42:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=FRhgeB2T87K5t0CT09OdYfsU2BeUwgbsRLKcKGxDqX8=; b=lPmSe9e7w14zNuC3rE73X69NcfAmk8UW+abbN3/vfu4XwbZpEcBIyNC3PYBxe49FvL i92ueqpRGt1TAxQcAqEcu90PSpe3DRYwVIUUwYUcD7U+BEhAqp+KFC1uStG6g/uY5bj3 5vlFyx8JE8wtjJmC2yIkkVi/7mJW4qoFBEhUIZ6eGwZMR1PF2k4HZV0yI4f5TafnEV0j O6NkjvS1r46qbdMgGUFMFEQkVGdGb1u+YsbGLMi9gTMNfwVZ7Y6O5Wp1i1QJgRN3f8RO WUKVAGh3Tvy/KLxsNviBPnzPAlk91O2P9nNgkxoV/GJWk/I2cvIyrbrdFR90I54Ki/Gu UBYA==
Received: by 10.50.34.201 with SMTP id b9mr4228982igj.55.1354657335555; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:42:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.28.209 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:41:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CCE40691.1531%Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com>
References: <50BE3721.90004@dcrocker.net> <CCE40691.1531%Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:41:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGATcHjM0360Vun1KdxsHabxuSyVRPzsFqo-Ex5eqvJ4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:42:19 -0000

It's a question of costs and benefits. The cost of the IETF Announce
posting is small. There are not that many of them and I don't find
them to be a burden. The benefit in openness and transparency is
large. Thus the answer is simple and the policy should remain as it is
for now. If conditions change, it can certainly be revisited.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
<Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com> wrote:
>> The concept is simple:  a time-specific gather is a meeting.  Meetings
>> require prior announcement beyond the working group.
>
> I am not against a meeting announcement. I am suggesting to announce the
> meeting where the audience is -- in the working group.
>