Re: Registration details for IETF 108

[Ole Jacobsen <[e-mail]>]

Larry,

The history of the relationship between the IETF and “The Meetecho Guys” goes back a decade or more. They have been working closely with the NOC and others to tailor the system to our needs.

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor & Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Cell: [phone]
T-Mobile: [phone]
Docomo: [phone]‬
http://protocoljournal.org

Sent from my iPhone

> On 12 Jun 2020, at 16:09, Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> "I believe IETF chose for good reason" doesn't sound open or transparent.
> 
> Why don't we focus on what are the unique IETF technical requirements
> that would drive a system choice?  Are they listed in the
> conference-tech-lab's
> list of things to consider?  Something that the system chosen uniquely
> meets?  Those considerations are important to capture, and would
> then become part of the RFP. Surely if they can run a conference
> using any of the listed systems, they could run one using meetecho too.
> 
> I'd think we'd want to contract with SOMEONE to actually manage
> logistics, rather than roll our own, in a hurry.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 3:05 PM
>> To: Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>; 'Jay Daley' <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: 'IETF Rinse Repeat' <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: RE: Registration details for IETF 108
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --On Friday, June 12, 2020 13:37 -0700 Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> ...
>>> For moving IETF online, I'd suggest hiring some group that  does it
>>> for a living
>>> 
>>> https://www.diplomacy.edu/conference-tech-lab
>>> 
>>> in consultation with IETF in an open transparent manner, of course.
>> 
>> Larry, that path leads to a rathole-rich environment with very smart and
>> well-fed rats. Among other things, I note that Diplo's list does not
> include
>> Meetecho, which I believe IETF chose for good reasons and with the
>> limitations of other systems for our purposes in mind and then, more
>> important, assorted people (including Ray and the Secretariat) worked
>> closely with the developers to further adapt to our needs.
>> 
>> Moreover, unless something has changed that you or Jay know about but I
>> don't, prior experience with Meetecho strongly suggests that, if we
> discover
>> deficiencies that we would like to have corrected before IETF 108 and give
>> them reasonable notice, the chances of getting those changes made are
>> quite good.
>> Having tried, in non-IETF contexts, to work with the providers of three or
>> four of the systems Diplo lists to get bugs or unfortunate features fixed,
> a
>> year or two might be plausible, but not six weeks... unless , of course,
> one is
>> a government making demands and/or threats.
>> 
>> It seems to me that Jay has, to his credit even if he has not gotten it
> right
>> every time, been struggling to avoid such ratholes.  If nothing else, even
> if
>> Diplo were a perfect match, there almost certainly is not enough time to
>> work out a contract with them, have them understand our needs, adjust fees
>> as needed, and then go into a meeting that is now only six weeks away
>> without creating unacceptable risk.
>> 
>> So, at minimum, can we postpone that particular discussion until we get
>> through IETF 108 and can start assessing what we learned and what to do
>> next?
>> 
>> thanks,
>>   john
> 
>