Subject: Bottom feeders

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:34:04 GMT

*> 
  *> why don't we reserve all *except* the last three rows for those
  *> who have read the drafts, leaving the last three rows for bottom
  *> feeders?
  *> 
  *> Keith
  *> 
  *> 

Keith,

The problem is that sll who attend IETF meetings and care about the
Internet are "bottom feeders", at one time or other.  There is no way
that any of us can keep current with more than a few working groups.
However, a broad understanding of what is happening is vital if we are to
avoid severe fragmentation of the Internet technology.  Attending
at least related WG sessions in our area seems like a minimum
requirement to keep some general understadning of how things fit
together.  The ADs do a fantastic job of keeping some coherence,
but they need an informed membership too.

Bob Braden

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:34:10 -0500

let me say that I'm fully in agreement with those who think that our WGs
need broad input, and who want to encourage more cross-group fertilization.  
I just don't happen to believe that merely paying the meeting fees 
entitles one to a seat in the room.  

I honestly don't know how many of the 'lurkers' in any particular
room are actively participating in some WG versus how many are lurking
in all of them.  but I do know that a large number of lurkers is
harmful to a WG's ability to conduct a useful meeting.

Keith

---

From: John Beck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:00:59 -0800

Keith> I honestly don't know how many of the 'lurkers' in any particular room
Keith> are actively participating in some WG versus how many are lurking in
Keith> all of them. but I do know that a large number of lurkers is harmful
Keith> to a WG's ability to conduct a useful meeting.

How so?  If they're just lurking, the only harm I could see is taking up
space in the room.  I started out more or less lurking, mainly just to make
sure people didn't try to do something stupid in my areas of interest.  But
gradually over time I found I was able to participate at a more meaningful
level.  So lurking can be a Good Thing, from a certain point of view.

-- John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:01:07 -0600

I agree with John and Bob Braden on this. We shouldn't worry about
people who lurk for a few meetings and then participate, or people who
lurk in some WGs and participate in others. We *should* worry about people
who come to the IETF once and never come back - because they probably came
to the wrong meeting, and went home unhappy. 

  Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:26:47 -0500

> We *should* worry about people who come to the IETF once and never come 
> back - because they probably came to the wrong meeting, and went home 
> unhappy.

interesting idea.

so assuming that a lot of folks come to the IETF expecting something
different than it is, and going home disappointed, what can we do to 
make future prospective attendees more aware of what they're getting into?

Keith

---

From: "Michael H. Warfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:09:17 -0500

> level.  So lurking can be a Good Thing, from a certain point of view.

	I also have to agree with this.  I lurk in several security related
forums and I attended one IETF conference (Orlando).  I haven't been to
another, strictly because of professional demands on my time (and I
sincerely regret not getting to another, yet).  When I was in Orlando,
I attended (lurked) at several WGs.  Most, I had nothing to say.  Some
gave me more information to back up what I had been hearing on the
mailing lists.  In once case, I did raise a point about some privacy
concerns with IPv6 and leaking information.  I was prepared to get
roundly flamed for an uninformed opinion (I had been doing my homework)
and was surprise to see someone who I respect and admire (I think it was
Steve Belovin) stand up and agree with me.

	The "lurkers" of the past and present are your "workers" of the
future.  Don't discourage them.  Don't intimidate them.  Ok... Ok...  Don't
intimidate them any more than you intimidate each other.  Don't single
them out for any special vile treatment.

	The meetings ARE getting large, I agree.  Anyone who comes with
something specific they wish to present certainly deserves respect
(and a badge for bravery) and a position from which to make their
presentation.  I didn't see any situation, then, where lurkers were
disrupting the proceedings or interfering with the ability of presentors
to get their presentations done.  In several cases, myself and a couple
of other "lurkers" promptly got roped (uh volunteered) into contributing
to some projects.  That's where worker bees come from.  :-)

> -- John

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  [email-masked]
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (678) 463-0932   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

---

From: "Michael W. Condry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:43:04 -0800

A couple of years ago I did a study on IETF attendance - the data was
gathered from the IETF web site looking at email addresses for folks attending.
Of the 15 or so ompanies that were examined almost all attendees were
almost always "repeaters". I cannot be more specific because the report
still has a proprietary label on it. The only year where the "one timers"
spiked was for the San Jose meeting.

>make future prospective attendees more aware of what they're getting into?

Michael W. Condry
Director, Internet Strategy
2111 N.E. 25th Ave.
JF3-206
Hillsboro, OR 97124-5961

Phone: (503) 264-9019
FAX: (503) 264-3483
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 19:18:57 +0000 (GMT)

> make future prospective attendees more aware of what they're getting into?

Don't make them more aware at all.

All the work is done on the mailing lists, yes? Only post information
about IETF meet locations etc. to those mailing lists. Do not link to
event registration pages from www.ietf.org. If they're not on any
mailing list, why would they want to come anyway?

L.

'Thirdly, there was often confusion about how to get involved in IETF
 standards effort, submit requirements, and get delivery commitments.'
   -- RFC3002 can be quite unintentionally hilarious at times.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:22:48 -0500

it's interesting that you chose to examine attendees according to their
(presumed) "companies", when IETF doesn't recognize such affiliation.

however it's hardly surprising if successful IETF folks gravitate to 
companies who are willing to support such work.

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:50:50 -0600

Michael,

As I said, the Secretariat has the facts, but I think you will find that the complete
data support the statememt that we have a high proportion of newbies. Which is
not a bad thing in itself, but is a bad thing if they don't become contributors.
Jeffrey Altmann expressed it very well.

  Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:54:22 -0600

> make future prospective attendees more aware of what they're getting into?

Hard  to say, but the newcomer's briefing and the Tao of the IETF are
both on the web site. Maybe we need some text on the registration page
pointing to those and suggesting strongly that people should read them
before typing in their credit card number.

  Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:02:02 -0500

> before typing in their credit card number.

maybe the registration form should have a short quiz on material from
these documents, which must be filled out before the form is considered
complete.  and if not completed successfully the prospective
registrant is warned that he may be wasting his money.

Keith

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:11:57 -0500

> before typing in their credit card number.

In at least parts of Canada, people are required to answer "a skill testing
question" before being able to claim a lottery or similar prize (like
the ones fast food companies like to run).

Maybe we should have a pop-up that asks "what's the 3rd word in the 5th
paragraph of the Tao of IETF" before they can register. ;)

And yes, I know literacy tests for elections are illegal in the US - but
this isn't an election.  
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:45:03 -0800

At 1:54 PM -0600 12/20/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>both on the web site.

It is important to note that the Tao is being substantially upgraded 
and has lots of new material specifically aimed at dealing with some 
of the problems discussed on this thread. Look for a revised version 
of the draft in the near future.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: V Guruprasad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:59:01 -0500

> registrant is warned that he may be wasting his money.

Including the overcrowding statistics, and warnings that the venue is not
the yankees stadium, that he might not make it into the door, and that
making it in is no guarantee of audibility, might help emphasize the
potential waste!

-p

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 11:52:30 -0500 (EST)

> registrant is warned that he may be wasting his money.

It would probably be sufficient to simply require that each registrant
indicate the WGs they expect to participate in and then check that verify
that they are in fact subscribed to at least some/one of those WGs mailing
lists. Could require the MD5 digest for some key recent draft. This would
indicate a level of cluefullness that they know how the process works and
are ready if not able to contribute. It would also allow for room
allocation planning.  Large rooms could be tiered based on something like:
front tier:
   1. Some draft authored for the group or in greather than 25th
percentile of frequency of contributors to the WG mail list.
   2. Preregistered and subscribed to the list
   3. Preregistered
   4. Surfers
Let any member of tier 1-3 bring 1 guest. Provide colored badges for tiers
1-3.

Focuses the space on folks who partcipate while not precluding any
interested folks from attending.

Dave Morris