Subject: Re: Bottom feeders

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:15:09 EST

> The properties of this sort of democratic process are well-known and 
> well-understood.  As any student of the Soviet Union will tell you, 
> this is precisely how the Old Guard maintained control of the CP.

The question comes down to "why are you attending an IETF meeting?"

I attend the meetings to accomplish things that we could not
accomplish on the mailing list.  That usually means trying to sit down
with a group of very active participants that have failed to come to
consensus on serious technical issues.  The reality is that I can sit
down with 6 or 8 individuals and usually hash out a consensus because
the feedback loop is rather tight.  However, take those same 6 or 8
individuals and surround them by 150 individuals who just want to
watch and the dynamics now change completely.  Instead of the tight
feedback loop of free flowing ideas we now get a line of people at a
microphone speaking in turn while filtering their thoughts so they are
appropriate for the masses who may not have a deep understanding of
the issues.  In all of this we are interrupted by non-participants
(defined as those that do not participate on the mailing list and who
never will) that throw in extraneous questions or suggestions that
make no sense in the given context.

The end result is that work does not get done in the working group
meeting.  Instead, when does the work get done?  By breaking the IETF
rules and having informal private meetings in the hallways or over a
beer at the bar.  The working group sessions then become a bunch of
reports of "there was an issue on the mailing list, and we've come to
a consensus."   In other words, the working group meetings themselves
are no longer work sessions and can be nothing more than a series of
presentations and q&a sessions.

I go to IETF to work in person with the people on the mailing lists
for the groups that I participate in, and to ensure that other groups
that attempt to apply those technologies do so in the proper way.

If you want to know what a working group is doing, spend the meeting
time reading the drafts.  Don't just go to the meeting.  If you are
going to go to the meeting be prepared to speak.  If you can't speak
to the subject, don't go to the meeting.    

 Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer      C-Kermit 7.1 Alpha available
 The Kermit Project @ Columbia University   includes Secure Telnet and FTP
 http://www.kermit-project.org/             using Kerberos, SRP, and 
 [email-masked]          OpenSSL.  SSH soon to follow.

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:03:18 EST

> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> 
> > That hasn't been my experience; I've seen what can only be described as
> > an "old-boy" network in operation.  I'm not saying that such a thing is
> > necessarily bad, just that sometimes it takes significant effort to
> > overcome it if you're a newbie.
> 
> Both the "old-boy" network and the undue skepticism are natural and occur
> in every field. My intuition is, if you try to suppress them, they'll show
> up in other ways!
> 
> On the other hand, I was a first-timer at the 49th IETF (although I was 
> already known to some in mmedia wg before), and had a rather atrocious
> proposal to lobby for (see my I-D - you *can't* possibly believe it at
> first reading :-). I've seen no less openness and no more skepticism at
> the IETF than within my own organisation. I think the people are wonderful,
> including many "old timers" - I quite enjoyed the many first-hand stories
> in the many hallway discussions.

But here is the difference between your first time experience and
those of others.  You were already known in one of the WG communities;
and you came with an I-D that you were trying to build support for.
In other words, you were a participant rather than a lurker. 

You are exactly the type of first timers that should come to IETF
meetings.

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 12:23:04 EST

> > I know that in the past we have discouraged the notion of a per day
> > attendance fee because it is an administrative nightmare.  Requiring
> > additional staff to stand at each meeting room to screen badges, ...
> 	[Dan]  Why would a color coded badge-per-day system would be an
> administrative nightmare? Like Monday = green, Tuesday = Yellow,...,Blue =
> the whole week. I do not think that this would require more badge screening
> than today.  This would certainly encourage a more focused participation
> planning.

At the moment:

(1) we don't screen badges at all (except at the terminal room)
    The assumption is that if you are at the conference hotel, then
    you are attending the IETF.  And most importantly, you have paid.

(2) the agenda for the IETF meeting is not finalized until
    approximately one or two weeks before the meeting.  Long after 
    registration opens and people have made their hotel and plane
    reservations.

The nightmare is caused by:

(1) the need to finalize the agenda for the IETF meetings months in 
    advance.  We all know that most working groups do not set the 
    agenda for their meetings until the last two weeks.  And many (most) 
    don't even ask for a meeting until the last possible minute.
    (It seems to have something to do with the topics for discussion
    [Internet-Drafts] not being published until the cut off deadline.)

(2) the need handle additional on-site registration.  given the late 
    notice available to those attending for a single day, the on-site
    registration is sure to explode.

(3) the need to enforce the new attendance rules.  In the past we have
    never enforced payment for the conference by the checking of
    badges.  I know that I have days without wearing mine especially
    now that the wireless networks are in place.  I never even walk
    into the terminal room unless I have to print something.  With 
    single day attendance we will be forced to hire staff to check
    badges to ensure compliance.

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:14:26 +0200

>     Dan> 	[Dan]  Why would a color coded badge-per-day system would be
> an
>     Dan> administrative nightmare? Like Monday = green, Tuesday =
> Yellow,...,Blue =
>     Dan> the whole week. I do not think that this would require more badge
> screening
>     Dan> than today.  This would certainly encourage a more focused
> participation
>     Dan> planning.
> 
>   That would be fine, but there are three problems that I see:
>   1) schedule changes (such as to get a group into a bigger room, to add
>        additional time for issues, etc.) would be impossible.
	[Dan]  Schedule changes are usually done within the same day, just
because some people do plan for specific working group(s) attendance anyway.
I cannot remember changes made at the last moment that involved moving a
meeting from one day to another.
>  
>   2) it doesn't make the hotel issue any easier, as we have less buying
>        power.
	[Dan]   Maybe, but the goal of this discussion is lowering the
crowding...
>    3) It guarantees that newcomers will not be there on Sunday for an
>     orientation session.
	[Dan]  Newcomers orientation meeting should be open.
>  
>   I like the idea of encouraging more interum meetings.
	[Dan]  I do like interim meetings as well. Some of the interim
meetings I was involved in were very productive. However, my impression is
that the IESG does not encourage them - they would rather see Working Groups
using the e-mail lists.