Subject: guidance (re: social event politeness)

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:31:31 +0100 (CET)

Hi -

  Is it appropriate to name & shame people who were cutting into
line yesterday during the social event, yet who did not admit to
and fix the error of their ways when it was pointed out that this
unfair behaviour is inappropriate?

  Those few of you who shrugged off a polite suggestion to join the
back of the queue: we know who you are, and are prepared to identify
you in front of thousands of your colleagues in the industry, if
there is a rough consensus among them that this is a reasonable way of 
self-policing the IETF and its social events.

	Sean.

---

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:47:53 -0700

> you in front of thousands of your colleagues in the industry

This is definately an RFC.

We also need a BCP for where to hold conversations. (Hint: NOT in the
middle of the hallways, please.)

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:50:49 -0800

my wife, a preschool teacher was in oslo.  she said that she had never
conceived that so many add (attention deficit) people could be in one
place.  our population has an overly high proportion of people who
think that they are more 'important' than everyone else, the kind of
folk who cut in plane boarding lines as if they will get to seattle
sooner.

feel sorry for them.  life constantly reminds them that they are no
more important than the rest of us tiny bags of impure water on a
little ball at the far end of a big universe.

randy

---

ps: present company excepted, of course :-)

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:12:39 -0500

> unfair behaviour is inappropriate?

I will admit that I cut once, basically by accident, because I saw what
looked like a table with nobody lined up at it--of course, the line was
on the other side.  I'm still not sure how I missed that--I think I was
just too hungry; when I saw food, I got tunnel vision and went straight
for it.  I apologize.

(Of course, we could discuss how the social was laid out so as to make it
almost impossible to have well-defined lines...not an excuse, but it was
part of the problem.)

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among   |
[email-masked]|people, it's define or be defined.           |
\==============================================================/

---

From: "Scott Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:42:25 -0800

> folk who cut in plane boarding lines as if they will get to seattle

I don't think it's arrogance.  Most of the people I talk to at the IETF
are socially aware.  I suspect it's two things.  First, this is a crew
who have been conditioned in their jobs to do whatever it takes to
accomplish goals.  That's fine in a controlled environment but can cause
trouble in the outside world.  Second, the overcrowding at the social
event was such that it was clear there was a very good chance that if
you weren't at the front of a "line" you would not get what you wanted
ever.  Ever.  Not a situation we face very often.

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Conner)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:18:13 -0800

You would think that a convention full of networking folk would have
prepared better for congestion control. :-)

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:01:27 -0800 (PST)

RED

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli				       [email-masked]
Academic User Services			     [email-masked]
     PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of
arms.  Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of
the right, 1843.

---

From: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:58:23 -0800

On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:42:25PM -0800, Scott Brim wrote:
> ...  Second, the overcrowding at the social

Indeed I waited on line for 15 minutes and when I finally got to the
food table there was NOTHING (except some Chick Peas). I stood around
for a while and eventually wandered away.

For my second attempt, I was not so polite (and the line was a bit
amorphous), but I got food!

We shouldn't criticize people based on their behavior in a crowded and
poorly organized arrangement (the placement of the food by the theater
made determining who was on what line problematical).

			-Jeff

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:19:34 -0800 (PST)

>   Is it appropriate to name & shame people

Be liberal in the abuse you accept, and conservative in the abuse you dole
out.

 - RL "Bob"

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:07:05 -0800

>prepared better for congestion control. :-)

As long as you don't start doing fragmenting.

    paf

--

---

From: Sean Doran <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Dec 2000 02:52:39 +0100

Thanks for the feedback, public and private.

It is pretty clear that we attendees should talk to
Qualcomm and Cisco about the disorganization of the social
event.  Our individual account team or sales people seem
like good targets for complaints.

However, wrt queue-jumping, there is a serious qualitative
difference between what some of us are admitting to
(innocently not realizing there ws a queue) and what
happened in the IMAX queue.

What I observed was this: the elevated red cloth strips
forming the "walls" of the serpentine line to the IMAX
show seemed to attract a sizable handful of people who
realized that they can be "ducked under", or indeed,
dismantled.

I am sad to say that I saw this frequently while I was in
one or the other corner near the IMAX theatre exit doors.

When some friends and I pointed out to people doing this
queue-jumping that they were being unfair to everyone else
(who were suffering from the same disorganization),
approximately 3/4 of the people in question left the queue
and rejoined it at the back.  Others required firmer
persuasion, and a few required a threat of exposure on
this mailing list before un-jumping from the queue.

There were only FOUR people who refused to leave the
queue.  None offered an excuse (such as, I was just
throwing away some garbage, or getting drinks for my
friends here).  They simply stayed in place, apparently
not caring that they cut in ahead of hundreds of people
who followed normal rules most of us learned as children.

Two of these people were wearing their IETF conference badges.  
One was identified by several people nearby, who recognized her.
One guy not only said "go ahead and name me", he attempted to
identify himself AS SOMEONE ELSE, by handing over another
person's business card.   To this person: WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE NOW.

I believe at least some of this is unacceptable behaviour
that cannot be overlooked simply by virtue of general
disorganization or industry competitiveness, and look for
guidance about how we should (collectively) police such
poorly-socialized people, if at all.

        Sean.

---

From: Tripp Lilley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:35:56 +0000 (/etc/localtime)

> poorly-socialized people, if at all.

Possible solutions, in no particular order:

	a) "There are few problems in life that can't be adequately
	    addressed by a suitable application of high explosives."

	b) Whisper "asshole" whenever you're within earshot of the
	   offenders, simultaneously throwing a brief but withering
	   glance at them. Encourage others who were directly or
	   indirectly a party to the offense to do the same.

	c) Socially engineer their room numbers then let your inner 12
	   year old loose, unsupervised, in a hotel with room service and
	   a city full of delivery services of all kinds. Depending on the
	   delivery services you enlist, be prepared with photographic
	   equipment.

	d) Be glad you don't suffer such a pathetic existence as to have
	   to lord your supposed privilege over others in order to feel
	   anything analogous to self-worth. Whenever you're reminded of
	   the offenders or the offense, recall this line and chuckle
	   softly in bemusement. If they can hear you, so much the better,
	   because they'll know you're having a little laugh at the
	   expense of their aforementioned pathetic existence.

Of course, in spite of what you might think, reading this, I'm inclined to
be a pretty nice guy :)

-- 
   Joy-Loving * Tripp Lilley  *  http://stargate.eheart.sg505.net/~tlilley/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "There were other lonely singers / in a world turned deaf and blind
    Who were crucified for what they tried to show.
    Their voices have been scattered by the swirling winds of time,
    'Cause the truth remains that no one wants to know."

   - Kris Kristofferson, "To Beat the Devil"

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:39:34 -0800 (PST)

Another common curtesy issue this thread has raised is vacation scripts...

I've recieved 3 dozen or so responses from people on the mailing list who
have automated vacation scripts. Please if you must use a vaction script
on your mail either unsubscribe from the mailing list while you're gone,
use procmail to filter your lists so they don't get caught by your
vacation script, or just don't use vacation...

Judging from the laptop/wireless card density I seriously doubt any of the
people using such a script are actually not reading their email here. and
in any event mailing lists traffice should not generate such a response.

thanks
joelja

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:35:33 -0500

> in any event mailing lists traffice should not generate such a response.

Anybody from the Exchange team listening? Nearly all the offenders are using
Exchange.  It doesn't make MS look good.  :-)

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"I think we'd get fewer bug reports if we    |
[email-masked]|stopped selling our software off planet."    |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:12:01 -0500

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]> writes:
    Joel> I've recieved 3 dozen or so responses from people on the mailing
    Joel> list who have automated vacation scripts. Please if you must use a
    Joel> vaction script on your mail either unsubscribe from the mailing
    Joel> list while you're gone, use procmail to filter your lists so they

  Most of these people how no choice to use more intelligent systems.
The best that they can do is to not use the vacation system.

  Their mailer systems are not rfc1123 compliant --- they use the
From: address for "errors", not the From_ address. Their vacation programs
can not ignore "Precedence:" headers, etc.

  They all use the same mail systems, btw.

] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions|gigabit is no[
]   Michael Richardson, Solidum Systems   Oh where, oh where has|problem  with[
]     [email-masked]   www.solidum.com   the little fishy gone?|PAX.port 1100[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [