Subject: Re: IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:30:05 EST

The problem I have with the Adelaide meeting is very simple.  With so
few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip.
This would be true for a meeting at any location more than 400 miles
away.  If only one group that I am interested in is holding a session,
I can't go.  The powers that be just won't approve it.

So the side effect of not holding a session is that not only have the
working groups decided that they do not want the interest and
participation of non-U.S. members, but they don't want the interest
and participation of U.S. members either.  

This leads me to question why the working group is in fact a working
group in the IETF.  

    Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer * Kermit-95 for Win32 and OS/2
                 The Kermit Project * Columbia University
              612 West 115th St #716 * New York, NY * 10025
  http://www.kermit-project.org/k95.html * [email-masked]

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 0 8:38:49 JST

Jeffry;

IETF is certainly US and English centric.

The current rules of IETF does not explicitely prefer some country
so much, though many important organizations have addresses in US
and English is the language of the rules. However, the rules keep
or amplify the US centric tendency, because a large number of US
participants means a large number of IAB/IESG members is likely to
be nominated.

Moreover, English centric IETF meetings are hard to be actively
attended by people whose primary language is not English. Compared
to other International organizations, IETF requires too much in
English capability. Worse, in IETF, inactive participation is
nothing.

Having a meeting in AU does not solve the latter, English, problem.

However,

> I can't go.  The powers that be just won't approve it.

it is a good solution for the first, US, problem.

Moreover, you are saying that the recent problem of IETF that there are
too many bogus WGs with too many people is also solved.

Very good.

So, all the future IETF meetings should be held in areas far away
from US and, in addition, where English is not the major language.

There many be an exception once in 10 years, of course.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 0 8:38:49 JST

Jeffry;

However,

Very good.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Austin Schutz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:14:52 -0800

> English capability. Worse, in IETF, inactive participation is

	It wouuld be possible to have all the mailing lists redistributed
using some babelfish-like mechanism for translation, though obviously that
wouldn't cover all languages and wouldn't do any well. Maybe better than
nothing.
	Reality is there has to be a standard language unless you have the
vast resources of the UN. While I can fully understand why the rest of the
world wouldn't be happy with English as the choice for that language, there
isn't really any fundamental reason why it shouldn't be English.

	Austin

---

From: Austin Schutz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 20:14:52 -0800

Austin

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:26:01 -0500

> from US and, in addition, where English is not the major language.

"My hovercraft is full of eels" -- J. Cleese

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 03:26:01 -0500

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:45:24 +0000

>few working groups holding sessions, I can't justify making the trip.

I'd like to offer a personal observation.  Yes, the working group sessions 
are useful but, for me, the most valuable stuff happens between the sessions.

#g

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

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:45:24 +0000

#g

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

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:14:23 -0500

> wouldn't cover all languages and wouldn't do any well. Maybe better than

Probably worse than nothing, unless there are much better translators than
babelfish out there.  WG discussions get down to really niggly points; a
translator that doesn't work *perfectly* is likely to make things worse.  At
least today, if we're talking through a language barrier, there's a human
brain doing the translation, able to recognize problems and rephrase as
needed.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Never mind the GUIs--Unix won't be for the   |
[email-masked]|masses until we fix backspace & delete.      |
\==============================================================/

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:14:23 -0500

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:16:21 -0600

It is not the case that few WGs are holding meetings. The published agenda
just isn't complete yet; it never is at this stage.

  Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:16:21 -0600

Brian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:17:02 -0500

> just isn't complete yet; it never is at this stage.

This is very true. Looking at the Internet Area, I expect all but one
of the WGs that normally have face-to-face meetings to meet in
Adelaide. Plus, there are three potential BOFs in the works, none of
which have been approved yet, and thus, also do not yet appear on the
agenda.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:17:02 -0500

Thomas