Subject: Re: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the last moment

From: Stephane Maes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 13:15:50 -0700

It is a question of being able to participate to the appropriate debates as needed. Disfranchising is correct and does not limit to voting.

Do not confuse being able as a group to agree on extending a meeting, in the absence of objections, with the meeting participants with changing the schedule at the last moment preventing participation of people would intended to participate face to face, traveled to that effect and registerd for it.

Also do not confuse allowing email input of those who chose to contribute this way versus preventing those who want to participate (or believe that they have to do so) to the FTF discussions to do so. As soon that by allowing such late changes you prevent participation, there is a problem and these people are disfranchised. Nothing to do with voting. Let me be clear I am not asking anything about a voting model. I am asking that agenda be not changed long enough before a FTF (e.g. 15 days) and that changes after be only for adhoc meetings provided that there are no objevtions of meeting participants.

Thanks

Stephane
_____
Stephane H. Maes, PhD,
Director of Architecture - Mobile, Oracle Corporation.
Ph: +1-203-300-7786 (mobile/SMS); Fax / UM: +1-650-607-6296.
e-mail: [email-masked]
IM: shmaes (AIM, Y!) or [email-masked] (MSN Messenger) 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Stephane Maes <[email-masked]>
CC: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sun Nov 07 05:57:40 2004
Subject: RE: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the last moment

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Stephane H. Maes wrote:

> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:27:04 -0800
> From: Stephane H. Maes <[email-masked]>
> To: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the
>     last moment
> 
> Dave,
>
> Thanks I appreciate that indeed IETF makes strong assumptions regarding 
> FTF participation and that a non negligible fraction of the participants 
> do not share this view.

There are more who are very happy with the flexibility to be able to 
schedule last minute meetings, move things around to avoid external 
conflicts, expand a WG meeting if issues come up, etc.

> I believe that these assumptions are not appropriate and risks to 
> disfranchise experts in particular topics who can't attend / justify to 
> attend the whole meeting. As IETF grows it is important to be all 
> encompassing of such participants.

You can't "disenfranchise" people in an organization that doesn't vote. 
IETF WG actions are based on mailing list rough consensus. You have 
demonstrated that you have an email account.

You might note that another standards organization that I am active in, 
IEEE 802.11, which has a specified membership and voting, has numerous 
task group meetings spread over each of its week long meetings. There are 
people interested in only one or two task groups. But voting membership in 
802.11 requires essentially week long attendance (technical attendance at 
75% of the session slots during a week) for multiple meetings.

In the very unlikely case the IETF changed to a voting model, who do you 
think would qualify for voting? People like you who with narrow interest 
in one WG or people who show a broader continuing interest in the IETF's 
activities? If you wish for a voting model, be careful since if you get 
what you wish you might actually be "disenfranchised".

> I think that the discussion that you mention would be quite useful and 
> hopefully allow to find a way to better address these issues.
>
> In the meanwhile, being disfranchised by the issues, it seems normal to 
> log an objection. Especially as some answer to my early concern have 
> indicated that some believe at IETF that it is unimportant to encourage 
> and enable participation of all relevant parties... I can only strongly 
> disagree with that view and complain if it is the one that de facto 
> prevails.

To the contrary, the IETF believes it is so important to "enable 
participation of all relevant parties" that it makes the important 
participation to be via email, which is certainly more available than 
physical attendance.

> Thanks
> Stephane
>
> _____
> Stephane H. Maes, PhD,
> Director of Architecture - Mobile, Oracle Corporation.
> Ph: +1-203-300-7786 (mobile/SMS); Fax: +1-650-506-7222; Office UM: +1-650-607-6296.
> e-mail: [email-masked]

Donald
======================================================================
  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
  155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w)
  Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 22:07:51 +0100

I haven't really see anyone state clearly what has always
been my understanding of this issue.

The IETF meeting starts Monday morning and ends Friday
lunchtime. We hold all the WG and BOF sessions in one place
because synergy and cross-fertilization between WGs is necessary
to achieve a reasonably consistent Internet. The intention
is that everybody stays for 4.5 days and takes an active part
in multiple WGs and BOFs. Parachuting in for one WG is simply
not effective, since we need to understand and resolve conflicting
issues between WGs.

In that context, late agenda changes in order to minimize
clashes are common events.

(This is made fairly clear in the Tao of the IETF, which
is more or less required reading for newcomers:
http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#2 .)

     Brian

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:34:23 -0500 (EST)

> http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#2 .)

Actually the latest version is here:

	http://edu.ietf.org/tao

Paul Hoffman ([email-masked]) and I welcome comments on the draft..

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 18:56:22 -0500

On Nov 7, 2004, at 15:15, Stephane Maes wrote:
>  I am asking that agenda be not changed long enough before a FTF (e.g. 
> 15 days) and that changes after be only for adhoc meetings provided 
> that there are no objevtions of meeting participants.
>
> Thanks
>
> Stephane
>

	perhaps ...  if you were willing to make a binding commitment to 
attend the meetings, by prepaying a non-refundable registration fee,
	then it would be easier to lock in the agenda such that no changes or 
modifications would be needed or required....  couple that with
          a freeze on research so that late-breaking information does 
not occur - will make it much easier to properly schedule firm agendas 
that
          will allow all meeting participants to get the highest value 
for money.

	is this really what is wanted?

--bill

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:14:30 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> writes:
    Brian> to achieve a reasonably consistent Internet. The intention
    Brian> is that everybody stays for 4.5 days and takes an active part
    Brian> in multiple WGs and BOFs. Parachuting in for one WG is simply
    Brian> not effective, since we need to understand and resolve conflicting
    Brian> issues between WGs.

    Brian> In that context, late agenda changes in order to minimize
    Brian> clashes are common events.

  I've always repeated exactly this when people wonder why I don't leave
on Tuesday.
  
  However, I continue to find that Monday/Tuesday is extremely overloaded.
  
  I also wonder if we couldn't instruct the hotel staff to put fewer
chairs in the rooms, spread out a bit more (in both directions). Also to
put the aisles on left and right of the room rather than in the middle.

  That would eliminate the 50% of chairs which are either unused
(because each person wants an empty chair on each side of them), or
because access involves climbing over far too many people.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [