Subject: RE: About IETF communication skills

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:48:38 -0400

At 11:57 PM +0100 7/31/08, <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Of course then there is
>the clarity of terminology, so lets define journalist as someone
>who is paid to write articles for a publication and who is
>at IETF to do their dayjob. Whether or not the journalist
>also has a blog is irrelevant. This definition does exclude
>people like me who are not currently paid to write and who
>only write on things like blogs and mailing lists.

Aside from my view that it would be unwise and counterproductive to 
try to exclude any type of journalist, you propose an unworkable and 
unrealistic distinction.  As much as you may not like it (and as much 
as some "traditional" or "real" journalists and the companies that 
employ them certainly do not like it), journalism is radically 
transforming, and "real" reporters are dwindling in number and 
Internet-age reporters are exploding.

There are "real" reporters who work on a freelance basis and are not 
paid until they write a story and (if they are lucky) place it. 
Should they be excluded because they are not on someone's payroll? 
There are bloggers who work full time for a corporation with one 
employee (themselves), and are compensated from advertising revenue 
-- an arrangement that (except for the number of employees) is 
remarkably similar to reporters who work for the New York Times.  Are 
they in or out?  I think you would find it impossible to draw a 
rational, fair line that allows in the people you prefer and excludes 
the rest.

A much better approach would be for the IETF to move into the 
Internet age (vis-a-vis journalists) and figure out how to work with 
all journalists, rather than cling to an outdated conception of that 
profession.  If some journalists are not getting it, we all 
collectively need to do a better job of educating them.  If a blogger 
gets it wrong, then we can all correct the error (either on the 
original blog or other blogs), and readers will begin to figure out 
that the blogger does not know what he/she is talking about (and 
perhaps then the blogger will listen more carefully the next time 
around).  And isn't it likely that the blogger will get it more wrong 
if we exclude him/her in the first place?

My 2 cents....

John Morris
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:57:14 +0100

Hi Fred,

I agree, it has been overmarketed by organizations that didn't a good job,
however, the IETF didn't marketed it correctly either, same as in general we
don't market other protocols, which I'm starting to believe that is an
important missing action for our work to be successfully and timely adopted
instead of having non-standard solutions in the market (yes, they will
always be there, but if we are in time, the level of penetration of
non-standard solutions will be much lower).

Regarding your question, I think different. I look to the depreciation of my
car value and I try (if my economy allow me), to go for a new model which
has lower maintenance cost before the old car value is too low to be sold
out as a second hand card.

Most of the time, what it seems a big expense, is actually saving across the
years in terms of maintenance, failures, gas cost (for example moving to an
hybrid car as I'm right now considering), tax savings because government
want to have more newer and more secure cars with a lower pollution level,
etc.

I see IPv6 in the same way, and this is what I'm selling to my customers. Is
more a saving than a cost when you move to IPv6 and plan ahead to do so
instead of waiting for the last minute.

Regards,
Jordi

> From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:05:59 +0100
> To: Jordi Palet Martínez <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: About IETF communication skills
> 
> 
> On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:52 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
>> Some considered that part of the delay of the IPv6 deployment was
>> due to the lack of communication effort from IETF. I'm not really
>> sure about that, however I agree that everything helps, of course.
> 
> To be honest, I think IPv6 has been overmarketed.
> 
> Let me ask you a question. When do you buy a new car? If you're at all
> like me, you buy a new car when the old one isn't serving your needs
> any more. Since buying a new car is a big expense, you put it off as
> long as you can.
> 
> IPv6 solves a problem service providers will have in 1-2 years. We
> knew a decade ago that it would be 1-2 years from now, but with less
> precision. A decade ago, the problem it solves wasn't one the service
> providers had, so investing in the technology only made sense from a
> research or early-adopter perspective. Everyone else put the
> investment off.
> 
> But IPv6 was heavily marketed. That leaves people saying, now that the
> problem is materializing, "yeah, yeah, yeah, been hearing about that
> for years."

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.