Subject: RE: 49th-IETF conf room planning

From: Matthew Goldman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:08:06 -0800

Ok, so the issue now is not about Vegas as an acceptable location, but
rather about which participants have the "right" and "priviledge" to attend
a meeting?

Speaking for myself, but I'm sure this applies to more than just me: I read
the relevant RFCs and drafts ("did my homework"), but I am not "active" by
the strict definitions some have used in this thread (at least not yet). I
pre-paid the meeting fee (in good faith that in return for accepting my
meeting fee, the IETF would provide meeting facilities commensurate to
enable my participation), I paid for travel and went. I followed all IETF
policies and procedures. Therefore, do I not have the "right" to be able to
sit comfortably in a meeting room and be able to hear the speakers, and
participate if I chose to, as much as anyone else?

What happened in San Diego happened. Oops. What we are talking about is
future meeting planning.

If you strictly limit attendance to a meeting room based on previous
participation, you will have no new participation, or "cross fertilization"
of ideas (as someone stated).

Plus, who defines the strict attendance laws? Who enforces them? Who checks
that this enforcement is fair and equal? I submit that this is impossible to
manage, particularly given the demographics of the attendees. Will new IETF
bylaws be created to define this special class (which of course will not
violate public laws)? Will the IETF refuse to accept pre-paid applications
based on these rules, or will they re-emburse delegates their meeting fee
and travel expenses, if delegates are "asked to leave" a meeting for no
other purpose other than because there is insufficient space provided? How
will the IETF handle possible lawsuits stemming from disenfranchised
delegates? The whole idea of even attempting to implement any of this is
simply ludicrous.

Nothing other than fair, open access is practical. Attendance numbers from
past meetings can easily be used to project future attendance levels and
plan accordingly. Attempting to setup "classes" or levels of participants
while collecting meeting fees in advance (in good faith that those paying
the fees will be able to attend the meetings), is foolhardy and fraught with
legal implications. 

My last many $$$ worth on this subject.
	Matthew Goldman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:55 PM
> To: Matthew Goldman
> Cc: 'Keith Moore'; 'Randall Gellens'; Daniel Senie; Michael 
> Richardson;
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 49th-IETF conf room planning 
> 
> 
> > It makes absolutely no sense to have someone pre-pay a 
> meeting fee, pay to
> > travel to a location, attempt to attend a meeting, and be 
> turned-away.
> 
> I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
> 
> it makes a great deal of sense if the purpose of the meeting 
> is to get 
> technical work done, rather than to spoonfeed people who 
> can't be bothered 
> to read the background material. and we're seeing entirely too much 
> spoonfeeding in meetings these days - witness the tremendous amount of
> precious meeting time that is devoted to presentations of *material
> already explained in the relevant drafts*, rather than discussion.
> 
> OTOH I happen to feel that it's quite useful if IETF folks who 
> actively participate in some WGs, drop in on the meetings of other
> WGs.  we need to encourage cross-pollenation between groups.
> 
> but we don't need to encourage non-participants to attend 
> IETF meetings.
> 
> > In addition, turning away people who wish to attend seems 
> counter to the
> > IETF spirit.
> 
> the IETF spirit has always been to include anyone *who does 
> his/her homework*
> 
> Keith
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:38:42 -0500

> participate if I chose to, as much as anyone else?

You did your homework, so I don't see why not.

What I was objecting to is the notion that merely paying the meeting
fees and travelling to the conference location entitles one to participate,
or even to attend.

> What happened in San Diego happened. Oops. What we are talking about is

right.  and perhaps the planning for future meetings should consider how to 
discourage attendance for those who are not willing to come prepared.

> of ideas (as someone stated).

of course.  I agree that lack of "previous participation" is not a good 
reason to limit attendance.

> Plus, who defines the strict attendance laws? 

I think it will be difficult to *prevent* anyone from attending, but it 
might be possible to *discourage* attendance from bottom-feeders.
(or similarly, to encourage prospective attendees to do their homework)

> Will the IETF refuse to accept pre-paid applications
> based on these rules

I think it might be sufficient to warn applicants that they are expected
to be prepared for the meetings by reading the drafts, and that those who
do not demonstrate familiarity with the material may be asked to leave 
in order to make room for those who came prepared to get work done.

> Nothing other than fair, open access is practical. 

what you call "open access" is not "fair" to those who invest their time
and money attempting to accomplish useful work and find their efforts
thwarted due to those who think that merely paying money entitles them 
to a seat in the room.

Keith

---

From: "Scott Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:06:01 -0500

> participate if I chose to, as much as anyone else?

Why did you go?  What did you get out of it that you didn't get out of
the mailing list?  Results of in-person meetings are never final, and
can be challenged by mail if you have good engineering reasons to do so.
(I admit this is sometimes mostly theory, but you can appeal to the IESG
if you think practice is deviating too much from theory.)

> of ideas (as someone stated).

Participation by mail before participation in person.

...Scott

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:08:43 -0800 (PST)

What I have observed is that the discussions in the face to
	face WG meetings are very useful, and frequently result in
	resolution (to be ratified by the WG's mailing list) of both
	technical and procedural issues (if the meetings are not
	useful for these purposes, why are we doing this in the first
	place).  

	In addition, the number of people present certainly poses a 
	logistical problem (ie. the rooms/hallways were too small),
	and in this way might have hurt WG progress (i.e., you
	couldn't get in). However, as I noted, the damage is due to
	logistical factors which are within our (IETF) control (i.e.,
	get a bigger hotel). Said another way, I do not believe that
	the increased number of people has harmed the S/N ratio in any
	of my WGs, nor any that I attended. The people who participate
	participate and the people who don't don't. I don't have
	a problem with that.

	Finally, adopting draconian measures that make the IETF some
	kind of secret/privileged society will mark the beginning of
	the end of the its usefulness. I would hate to see that
	happen. 

	Dave

	[BTW, none of this addresses the value of what happens in
	the hallways and bars]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:00:53 -0500

>Participation by mail before participation in person.

EXAMPLE

        I was an active participant (e.g. ask folks in Denmark
who were involved with early MIME stuff) via email long
before I showed up in person.  To this day, I don't make
every meeting.  Before ever showing up in person, I was able
to make major impacts on MIME's support for multi-lingual
environments.

        I've seen others do similarly.  For example, I've
never run into Valdis at an IETF meeting, but he has an
impact.

ASSERTION
        So one need not attend to have an impact.

Ran

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:02:17 -0500

Said another way, I do not believe that
        the increased number of people has harmed the S/N ratio in any
        of my WGs, nor any that I attended. The people who participate
        participate and the people who don't don't. I don't have
        a problem with that.

It seems like there is some sort of psychological effect of large rooms
and/or large numbers of people - people seem less likely to speak their 
minds in a room full of mostly passive observers, than when in a room 
full of people who are mostly participating in the discussion.

If this is true then having large numbers of passive observers at a 
meeting does indeed lower the S/N, by reducing the signal level.

I think we have two choices: we can either try to discourage lurkers
who don't do their homework, or we can increase the current tendency 
for decisions to be made by (often closed) design teams for later rubber 
stamping by the WG.  The latter seems much more like a secret/privileged
society than the former.

Keith

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:18:22 -0500

> never run into Valdis at an IETF meeting, but he has an

If anybody's seen me at an IETF meeting, they were talking to a Klingon
impostor.  As John Beck will testify, I don't mind travelling - as long
as it's on somebody else's dollar.  I've just never had a convergence
of funding, personal time (little kids take up a lot of that ;), and a
large desire to get something done that I wasn't able to accomplish via
the mailing lists.

On the other hand - as many people have stated, a lot of the REAL work
gets done in the hallways and bars.  I recently attended a meeting in
Washington DC sponsored by the Center for Internet Security - the
meeting was for the most part a yawner except for one slide that took
all 4 of the VT contingent by surprise (but that's another story ;),
but the 45 minutes or so of random discussion after the formal meeting
was itself worth the 4 hour's drive each way.

But I've never figured out how to put the right spin on it so I don't
feel like I'm lying about why I'm going to an IETF...
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech