Subject: RE: T-shirts and other Tao questions

From: Gary Malkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:55:58 -0400

I think, perhaps, that we should bring this issue to the IESG
and get the official word from them.  I'd hate to put the wrong
thing into the RFC.

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 12:37 PM
To: USWG; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: T-shirts and other Tao questions 

From:  Gary Malkin <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>
To:  "'Susan R. Harris'" <[email-masked]>,
            "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Cc:  USWG <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date:  Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:00:24 -0400

>I rather like the bit about Marshal and the T-shirts.  At least
>I never mentioned Marshal and his 2x4.
>
>Also, interim meetings are most definitely encouraged.  That's
>the official IETF line.

I don't know what it may have been before or in the early part of my
involvement but I sincerely believe the current creed is that the
mailing list is the WG and that, outside IETF meeting, physically
meetings or even teleconference by phone are exceptional,
disenfranchise those who cannot afford to travel/phone or who maybe
are just in an inconvenient time zone.  At least I have heard this
numerous times from Area Directors.  Interim physical meetings require
public announcement on the IETF announce list (a requriement
frequently ignored, sometimes resulting in AD wrath) and should
generally only be done after consultation with your Area Director. I
have certainly gotten extreme negative vibes in connection with
interim meetings.  I'm not sure how to resolve this.  The latest
official word in RFC 2418 is as follows:

   All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide
   participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its
   business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet
   periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to
   resolve specific issues and to direct future activities.  IETF
   Plenary meetings are the primary venue for these face-to-face working
   group sessions, and it is common (though not required) that active
   "interim" face-to-face meetings, telephone conferences, or video
   conferences may also be held.  Interim meetings are subject to the
   same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation,
   and process, which apply to other working group meetings.

   ...

3.2. Session venue

   Each working group will determine the balance of email and face-to-
   face sessions that is appropriate for achieving its milestones.
   Electronic mail permits the widest participation; face-to-face
   meetings often permit better focus and therefore can be more
   efficient for reaching a consensus among a core of the working group
   participants.  In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that
   its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only
   participants.  Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about
   topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list,
   or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list
   consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list.

which manages to have a lot of words in it without saying whether
interim meeting are "encouraged" or "discouraged".  Maybe it varies
from area to area....

>From: Susan R. Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 5:41 PM
>
>Hi Don - I really like your edits to the Tao.  Just a couple of questions:
>
>> 1.10 Social Event
>> 
>>    Another of the things normally organized and managed by the local
>>    hosts is the IETF social event.  The social event has become a
>>    tradition for Tuesday evening at the IETF meetings.
>
>I noticed you omitted the language about Marshall and T-shirts:
>
>   [the social event was] immortalized by Marshal T. Rose with his
>   reference to "many fine lunches and dinners" [ROSE], and by Claudio and
>   Julia Topolcic with their rendition of "Nerds in Paradise" on a pink
>   T-shirt.
> 
>Did the original seem too out-of-date?

I'm happy to have this sort of humerous text left in, in general.
However, I believe the Marshall Rose reference is misleading.  His
remarks are on page 585 of my copy of "The Open Book".  He is
contrasting Doers with Goers: "... There is a propensity among Goers
not even to use computers, the very technology they are working to
enhance. A Goer attends meetings to deal with weighty political
issues, travel, and have many fine lunches and dinners."  I've always
heard the phrase used in connection with OSI/ITU meetings, not to
"immortalize" the IETF Social which usually does not provide the sort
of gourmet meal with wine that is being referred to.

>And a few paragraphs later you added this new text:
>
>>    At the 47th IETF Meeting in Adelaide, Australias, in the absence of
>>    an official T-shirt, an un-official "T-shirt BOF" was held resulting
>>    in a design available from a local T-shirt store in the city.  This
>>    was announced by the following notice which appeared on a bulletin
>>    board at the IETF meeting:
>> 
>>       xxx
>
>What should the "xxx" be?

Chris Burke, as the original author, should be more trusted on this.
See his message. This is what I came up with independently from
memory:

    Since there is no official T-shirt at this IETF meeting, an informal
    T-shirt BOF was held last night.  Some of the initial designs were
    really great but when we talked to Steve Coya about them, we found
    there were intellectual property rights problems.  With further
    work and some compromises, we came up with an acceptable design (rough
    consensus) and found a T-shirt store in Adelaide willing to print them
    (running code).  Feel free to come up with your own T-shirt and we'll
    try to interoperate...

I think some version of it, labelled as an approximation, should
be included.

><big snip>
>
>>    Time at the IETF meetings is a precious thing.  Working groups are
>>    encouraged to do as much work as possible over their mailing list.
>>    This reduces the amount of work which must be done at the meeting and
>>    is accessible to everyone.  Working groups are discouraged form
>>    having meetings between IETF meetings as they tend to disenfrachise
>>    those who can not afford to travel, even though the results of any
>>    such meetings must be posted to the working group mailing list and
>>    confirmed there.  Such "interim" working group meetings outside of
>>    the IETF meetings require Area Director approval and must be
>>    announced on the IETF Announce list.
>
>This is quite different that the original, and I'd welcome Don's and
>others' comments.  Specifically, in the third line above, Don says WGs are
>"discouraged" from meeting between IETFs, while the original says
>"encouraged."  Which is right?

See above.

><another big snip>
>
>Towards the end, Don added a list of IETF meetings - do others agree that
>this is useful?

I think this would be good in a new meeting attendee oriented document
but should be near the end so it does not get in the way of anyone not
interested.

>> 3.4 IETF Meeting List
>> 
>>    Note: some meeting have no "sponsor".  In those cases, the
>>    Secretariat has filled in for the sponsor duties.
>> 
>>    Num. Attnd. Date    Location                Sponsor
>>    ---- ------ ----    --------                -------
>>     1    15  Jan 1986  San Diego, California   Linkabit
>>     2    21  Apr 1986  Aberdeen, Maryland      Army Ballistic Research
>> Lab.
>>     3    18  Jul 1986  Ann Arbor, Michican     University of Michigan
>>     4    35  Oct 1986  Menlo Park, California  SRI
>>     5    35  Feb 1987  Moffett Field, Calif.   NASA Ames Research Lab.
>>     6    88  Apr 1987  Boston, Massachusetts   BBN
>>     7   101  Jul 1987  McLean, Virginia        MITRE
>>     8    56  Nov 1987  Boulder, Colorado       NCAR
>>     9    82  Mar 1988  San Diego, California   San Diego Supercomputer
>> Ctr.
>>    10   112  Jun 1988  Annapolis, Maryland     US Naval Academy
>>    11   114  Oct 1988  Ann Arbor, Michigan     University of Michigan
>>    12   120  Jan 1989  Austin, Texas           University of Texas
>>    13   114  Apr 1989  Cocoa Beach, Florida    Kennedy Space Center
>>    14   217  Jul 1989  Standord, California    Stanford University
>>    15   138  Nov 1989  Honolulu, Hawaii        University of Hawaii
>>    16   196  Feb 1990  Tallahassee, Florida    Florida State Univ. SC
Ctr.
>>    17   244  May 1990  Pittsburgh, Penn.       Pittsburgh S. C. Center
>>    18   293  Aug 1990  Vancouver, BC           Univ. of British Columbia
>>    19   292  Dec 1990  Boulder, Colorado       University of Colorado
>>    20   348  Mar 1991  St. Louis, Missouri     Washington University
>>    21   387  Aug 1991  Atlanta, Georgia        BellSouth
>>    22   372  Nov 1991  Santa Fe, New Mexico    Los Alamos National Lab.
>>    23   530  Mar 1992  San Diego, Californai   San Diego Supercomputer
>> Ctr.
>>    24   677  Jul 1992  Cambridge, Mass.        NEARnet
>>    25   633  Nov 1992  Washington, DC          US Sprint
>>    26   638  Mar 1993  Columbus, Ohio          OARnet & Ohio State Univ.
>>    27   493  Jul 1993  Amsterdam, Netherlands  Surfnet & RARE
>>    28   636  Nov 1993  Houston, Texas          SESQUINET & Rice
University
>>    29   785  Mar 1994  Seattle, Washington     NorthWestNet
>>    30   710  Jul 1994  Toronto, Ontario        University of Toronto
>>    31  1079  Dec 1994  San Jose, California    Sun Microsystems
>>    32   983  Apr 1995  Danvers, Masshchusetts  FTP Software & NEARnet
>>    33   617  Jul 1995  Stockholm, Sweden       Royal Inst. Tech &
NORDUnet
>>    34  1007  Dec 1995  Dallas, Texas           MCI
>>    35  1038  Mar 1996  Los Angeles, Calif.      - none -
>>    36  1283  Jun 1996  Montreal, Quebec         - none -
>>    37  1993  Dec 1996  San Jose, California    Cisco Systems
>>    38  1321  Apr 1997  Memphis, Tennessee      Federal Express
>>    39  1308  Aug 1997  Munich, Germany         ISOC-Germany Chapter
>>    40  1897  Dec 1997  Washington, DC          Newbridge Networks
>>    41  1775  Apr 1998  Los Angeles, Calif.      - none -
>>    42  2106  Aug 1998  Chicago, Illinois       Motorola
>>    43  2124  Dec 1998  Orlando, Florida        Microsoft
>>    44  1705  Mar 1998  Minneapolis, Minnesota  Ascend Communications
>>    45  1710  Jul 1999  Oslo, Norway            Uninett
>>    46  2379  Nov 1999  Washington, DC          Nortel Networks
>>    47        Mar 2000  Adelaide, Australia     connnect.com.au
>>    48        Jul 2000  Pittsburg, Penn.        Marconi Communications
>>    49        Dec 2000  San Diego, California   Qualcom and Cisco
>>    50        Mar 2001  Minneapolis, Minn.      Lucent
>>    51        Aug 2001  London, England         British Telecom

I also corrected the Spots list since there are now commonly small
orange spots on NomCom member badges.

Thanks,
Donald
===================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                    [email-masked]
 140 Forest Avenue                          [email-masked]
 Hudson, MA 01749 USA     +1 978-562-2827(h)    +1 508-261-5434(w)

---

From: "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:36:30 -0400 (EDT)

> and get the official word from them.  I'd hate to put the wrong

OK - who would we ask to handle that - April?