Subject: Re: this is insane.

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:51:03 +0000

At 07:06 10/12/98 +0100, Jon Crowcroft wrote:

>it would be interesting to use the ietf  registration list and grep
>thru all the WG mail archives and rfc and i-d drafts and see how many
>people are registered who never wrote a thing - "we know who you are"
>....

I think there's a disturbing implication here.

I don't see any shortage of people to *write* the drafts.  They also serve
who *read* and comment upon the drafts.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:52:24 -0800

> who *read* and comment upon the drafts.

That's why I included more classes than chair, editors, authors and 
implementors.  I suspect, though, that "commentators, lurkers and the 
curious" may have a hard time distinguishing what class they belong 
to.  There's a large overlap between all of the classes I listed, so 
I'm not really suggesting there be seven little flags, but two or 
three seem to make sense.

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  All actions are wrought by the qualities of nature only.
  The self, deluded by egoism, thinketh, "I am the doer."
  -- Bhagavad Gita
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "John W. Noerenberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 12:52:24 -0800

john noerenberg
[email-masked]

---

From: John Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 23:15:30 +0100

Let me suggest an orthogonal approach.

Im sure many of you also hear conversations along the lines of "what are
you going to next", "I'm not sure, do you think XYZ will be any good?"

Perhaps the easiest solution is to have more parallel sessions. We already
have scheduling conflicts so why not go the whole hog and have 15 meetings
in parallel in each session instead of 8, the logic being that (2,000 / 15)
< (2,000 / 8)?

;-)

John

---

From: John Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 23:15:30 +0100

;-)

John

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:33:36 -0500

> I suspect, though, that "commentators, lurkers and the 
> to.

I suspect you should stop talking for a while and finish swallowing
that foot.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:33:36 -0500

_MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:46:21 -0500

> in parallel in each session instead of 8, the logic being that (2,000 / 15)

There are already too many scheduling conflicts.   I don't think this
will win.   We should just be reasonable and respond to:

> "what are

with:

"If you don't know, don't go!"

Honestly, I doubt any of us really have time to participate in all the
protocols we find interesting - I know there are a number of protocols
I'm interested in but for which I have no time.   We need to foster a
community of meaningful participation, not just participation.   That
will, I think, solve our problem more readily than just having IETF in
Minneapolis in March.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:46:21 -0500

with:

			       _MelloN_