Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 16 May 2018 21:26 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 47DA912D9FE; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 zNPOOmWFUbQ9; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 225BE12D96D; Wed, 16 May 2018 14:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1fJ3wO-0007Ab-Go; Wed, 16 May 2018 17:26:32 -0400
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:26:27 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok
Message-ID: <E9D4D65580FE1097406E9B9F@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBJZC4zJW0i=wzHECgPot=wjxQeVHi1NDfhCsTvicgeOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A299772BE5B81D3F99BCCCE9@10.0.0.22> <CA+9kkMBJZC4zJW0i=wzHECgPot=wjxQeVHi1NDfhCsTvicgeOA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/m7iM3a3V-wl-n7HWkw1D2Ujcz-Q>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 16 May 2018 21:26:36 -0000
Ted, --On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:12 -0700 Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Howdy, >... > One of the difficulties with English is that it sometimes hard > to tell whether a conjunction is meant to gather things into a > set or distinguish them from each other. In your comment > above you say "Hackathons and convention-like activities". > I'm hoping that in this case you meant to distinguish them > from each other. I did indeed and my apologies for any confusion. > Hackathons are, at least in my opinion, about as far from > convention-like exhibitions as you can get while sharing the > same hotel food. We are hosting them in part because we want > to see decisions shift on who gets support for attendance, so > that folks who are writing the code that implements and > informs our specifications get to come. We don't want to do > that to disfavor any current attendee, of course, but to > broaden the base of participation in a way that is > particularly useful to producing good standards. > > I hope you concur with that goal. I do but only up to a point and with two concerns: (1) Organizations with "you get to use X hours or days a well doing things you think are worthwhile and we will pay you or otherwise support you doing that time" policies notwithstanding, suppose I'm a manager or equivalent responsible party in a more traditional organization. Suppose someone (or several people) for whom I'm responsible are really good implementers. Suppose they come to me and say something that I hear as "we would like to go to IETF a day or two early, incur additional costs for hotels and the like that we expect you to pay for, and spend the time doing programming on their work rather than yours/ the company's". I wouldn't predict good results, at least unless I hear the request as including "if you don't let me do this, I'm likely to start looking for another job" and, of course, that might or might not work. The concern is closely related to concerns you have heard me express about "professional standardizers": for any particular organization, to the extent to which IETF participation and the time and resources it takes are seen as competing with, rather than complementing, "day job" objectives and responsibilities, the people who are likely to end up attending are those who are not more valuable in other ways. The IETF is not special in that regard -- every standards body seems to develop some version of it, at least once the initial versions of the truly fundamental core standards are complete. In some respects, we have been either lucky or smart that it has not happened sooner and with more impact. (2) I've said this before, but we need to keep in mind that there is a fundamental cultural conflict between the idea of FOSS software that people take and modify to reflect their personal ideas and preferences -- i.e., a situation in which regular forking of specs is the norm rather than the exception (even to the point of sometimes being considered as a goal) and standards that put a high premium on interoperability, the ability to substitute one implementation for others, and the stability both require. I don't believe there are problems caused by that difference that are insurmountable if people are aware of the tension and willing to work together, but awareness of the difference in perspectives is very important. Of course, for the particular case of the software and systems that support the IETF (as contrasted with systems and approaches we expect to standardize for others), those concerns are probably irrelevant. best, john
- Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Ban… IETF Chair
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Linda Dunbar
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Paul Wouters
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Jared Mauch
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Loa Andersson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Adam Roach
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Adam Roach
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Ted Lemon
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Wes Hardaker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Andrew G. Malis
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Christer Holmberg
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Ted Hardie
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Alissa Cooper
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Ted Lemon
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… John C Klensin
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… George Michaelson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Warren Kumari
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… János Farkas
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- RE: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Janos Farkas
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Michael Richardson
- Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Daniel Harkins
- 答复: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in… Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept)