Re: IETF MAILING: REGISTERED ATTENDEES: December 9-13, 1996

["anne (a.r.) philpott" <philpott@nortel.ca>]

In message "Re: IETF MAILING: REGISTERED ATTENDEES: December 9-13, 1996", 
you write:

>
>"David W. Morris" writes:
>> In light of all the recent emotional discussion claiming that the IETF
>> is an open organization, I find this current thread elitist and very
>> distressing.
>
>Its not elitism. We are all happy welcoming people trying to do
>work. What people object to are "gawkers" coming to the meetings, and
>then disrupting discussion. The IETF isn't a form of entertainment or
>a way to "keep up with the industry" -- its a working meeting.
>

I seem to recall that a large share of the disrupting discussion originated
from people who appeared to consider themselves to be valuable contributors.

>> What better way to let them understand the importance of careful 
>> implementation of open standards than to observe the painful careful
>> detailed effort that goes into creating such standards.
>
>I can think of many better ways. Maybe they can read a book about us
>or something. 

Us?  Them?  Perhaps a book on elitism would be in order.

The current way disrupts the meetings. It was very
>difficult to get work done with 1000 people in San Jose last
>time. With 2000, I'm not sure what we are going to do.
>
>> Rather than working to discourage observers, we should be encouraging
>> the 'staff' to arrange facilities to better accomadate larger groups.
>> Better sound systems, etc.
>
>I don't think you understand.
>
>A working meeting isn't a mass rally. We cannot get work done in a
>stadium. Its a WORKING GROUP. If it isn't cozy, its too big. We've
>already gone way past that for many groups, but now we are going
>beyond "large room" into "multiple hotel ballrooms" and that just is
>beyond the ability to function.
>
>People who show up, don't know why they are there, haven't read the
>drafts, and aren't participants in the mailing list, have no real
>business making their opinions known. More than that, though, they
>barely have any business taking up space in the room. Thats not
>elitist -- its just plain sense. If they wanted to take the effort to
>read the stuff and pay attention, they could have. There was no
>barrier to doing so.
>

Perhaps everyone should reveal their business interests for attending.
You could even go about the room presenting arm bands for those
ones you've categorized into the "them" category.  I know.  Perhaps a 
you could line people up for an oral test, and those under a certain
scope could stand so as not to take up the space in the room that they
have no business occupying.  And at that, they should stand up against
the far wall, that is, unless one of "us" has found themselves more 
worthy or the prime power location.

I contribute as required in the interests of my company and my area
of expertise.  I do not feel compelled to respond to hand raising
polls taken by chairs and I am not in habit of sharing my reasons for
attending.  Nor am I required to, right?

Regards,
Anne

Opinions expressed are my own and not those of my company.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne (Philpott) Brown                  	Multimedia & Security Standards
                                  	Nortel Technology 
Phone: +1-613-765-5274           	P.O.Box 3511, Station C
G3fax: +1-613-763-8385			Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4H7, CANADA
Internet: philpott@nortel.ca
X.400: G=Anne; S=Philpott; P=Nortel; A=Telecom.Canada; C=CA