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

From: "Stephane H. Maes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:27:04 -0800

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.

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.

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.

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]
IM: shmaes (AIM) or [email-masked] (MSN Messenger)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:28 AM
To: Stephane H. Maes; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FW: [Inquiry #19085] Issue with Meeting Schedule change at the last moment

Stephen,

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 03:10:39 -0800, Stephane H. Maes wrote:
>  I have difficulty to understand why this is not reverted when  
> contested. I also have difficulty understanding how such a  position 
> can be taken. The agenda was draft? So it can't be draft  till the 
> end? People have to make their travel arrangements? So  eithere the 
> change is too late or the draft agenda remained draft  too late. I 
> can't believe you argue this is acceptable.

You appear to have a model for IETF meeting scheduling that does not 
match its long history.  The model the IETF has *always* used is that 
the meeting is all week and it presumes that attendees are present all 
week.

That this model is problematic for many people has been clear for many 
years.  However changing the model is quite a major bit of work, and 
would go deeply into the IETF cultural view of the nature of the 
meeting.

IETF participation is very different today, than it was 15 years ago.  
So it is fine and reasonable to suggest considering a new model, but 
this should be pursued as constructive adaptation to changing needs, 
rather than as a complaint about a particular decision.

d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker  a t ...
www.brandenburg.com

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

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:33:31 -0500

On Nov 06 2004, at 21:27 Uhr, Stephane H. Maes wrote:

> disfranchised

If you really have to continue your crusade on the IETF list, can you 
at least stop using this word (assuming you mean disenfranchised)?
There is no voting in the IETF, so you can't be deprived of any voting 
right.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:36:50 -0000

Gruessdi Carsten,

Let's not pick up on each others use of language shall we?
Disfrachise is a perfectly good word. I believe it means exactly what Stephane intended it
to mean...

"To deprive of a franchise or chartered right; to dispossess of the rights of a citizen,
or of a particular privilege, as of voting, holding office, etc."

Better to stick to a debate of the point at hand.

Adrian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 07:57:40 -0500 (EST)

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.

> 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]

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 08:10:26 -0500

> Disfrachise is a perfectly good word. I believe it means exactly what 

Probably.
That's why I spoke up.

> or of a particular privilege, as of voting, holding office, etc."

Exactly.
It's a perfectly good indicator that there is confusion about what 
working group meetings are.

RFC 2418 says:
    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.

Now if Stephane has reason to believe this mandate will not be 
fulfilled, then he can talk about disenfranchising.

In summary, by using this word, Stephane is implying he believes the 
lemonade WG chairs will not do their job fulfilling the RFC 2418 
mandates.
Being a WG chair myself (of another WG), I find that interesting.

Gruesse, Carsten