Re: Outlawing PowerPoint (Was: a suggestion....)

[cuber at worldmediaco.com (Uber, Chet)]

I had read all of the IDs and RFCs related to the working groups I
attended PRIOR to attending the meetings.

I make a concerted effort to do so, and actually took a copy of all
revisions of each ID and appropriate RFCs with me on my laptop into each
meeting.

I am not talking about being taught (God knows I spent years paying for
an education, and take with Continuing Education classes every month)
about what is going on, and I am sorry my words led to that
misperception.

I agree that at least a portion of every meeting I attended dealt with
narrowing down the SHOULDs, MUSTs, and related details. However, new
proposals were made in a number of the meetings I attended. Some seemed
well received and got validation via comments in the WG or BOF; but I
must say that some were vehemently attacked, and conflicting
interpretations of RFCs often pervaded. My best example of this would be
the EAP meeting. To say that all of these items are worked out in the
mailing lists is not accurate.

Another reason for attending for me is to get the information of what
went on at the meeting in real-time. I still don't have my CD from
Chicago, and am glad I was there to take notes!

I still maintain that making comments for the sake of commenting, when
someone else has espoused your thoughts, is a waste of bandwidth. My
experience in USENET is that "me too" and "I agree" replies to the list
were abhorred. If this is not the case in IETF, and the addition of my
voice in favor or dissent is important; then I will begin to do so.

I agree 100% that the face-to-face meeting is not the place to learn from
the beginning, it is however a place to gather new information; and get a
feeling for dissension, opposition and promotion of IDs, etc.. The
corporate pushes are far more evident face-to-face. Previous RFC authors
vehemently expressing views in the same physical space gives me
personally a much clearer picture of the "reality" of the issue then the
mailing lists.

What I had hoped you would have also addressed were some of my issues
concerning finding out what is really broken, before trying a shotgun
approach of "control measures" to hopefully increase bandwidth.

I will strive to "come out of the shadows," and be less of a lurker and
more of a contributor; but my feeling of elitism still stands. Alas,
there is nothing anyone can or should try to do to alleviate this. It is
MY personal feeling and only I can change it.

Thanks for the input as I never like working in a vacuum.

Warmest Regards,
Chet

============================================================
Chet Uber, Chief Technology Officer
World Media Company, a World-Herald Company
http://www.omaha.com cuber at omaha.com
vox 402.444.1158   fax 402.346.7158   pgr 402-899-1854
------------------------------------------------------------
"My life is an MPEG, and I am not the producer.
============================================================

Pete Resnick wrote:

> On 12/14/98 at 11:18 AM -0600, Chet Uber wrote:
>
> > ...I feel a great deal of elitism being espoused in this and the
> > other threads relate to it; such as Per's make the tourists suffer
> > thread.
> > In my case, I am the Chief Technical Officer for my company; and a
> > great deal of our future depends on what is being designed,
> > specified and ratified today. I guess I would be a lurker in your
> > terminology, but that is only because I had not found a specific WG
> > or ID where I could make significant contributions not already
> > espoused. Would it help for me to send an "I agree" e-mail to the
> > list?? I did at the Orlando meeting, finally find a WG that is
> > something I feel I can make a strong contribution to -- namely
> > Common Intruder Detection standards.
> > I cannot help telling "you" the wizards, gurus, long-time protocol
> > developers that people need to start somewhere!
>
> I just got done sending private e-mail to someone about this. Yes,
> newbies need to start somewhere, but the IETF *face-to-face meeting*
> is not the place to do it.  Remember, the official activities of the
> working group, and all decisions made, take place on the mailing
> list. The face-to-face meetings are for high bandwidth interactions
> between working group participants on issues that are a pain to work
> out in e-mail. Face-to-face meetings are most emphatically not the
> place to learn what the working group does or what the topic is
> about; if you need to do that, you need to read the mailing list
> archive and the Internet Drafts for the working group.
>
> Lurking on a mailing list decreases bandwidth by zero. Even sending
> private e-mail to experts on the mailing list to find out non-obvious
> information is pretty low in its effects on bandwidth. And lurking at
> IETF meetings in and of itself doesn't decrease bandwidth so long as
> everyone can get in the room. But having long presentations on a
> topic being discussed for the benefit of people who need review is a
> huge waste of bandwidth. I'd love to go back to the time where WG
> chairs asked "How many people have read this document?" and if the
> number of hands is less than 3, discussion of that item is taken off
> of the agenda.
>
> This is not about elitism; it's about using the face-to-face meetings
> for their designed purposes. Teaching is not one of them.
>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick at qualcomm.com>
> QUALCOMM Incorporated
> Work: (217)337-6377 or (619)651-4478
> Fax: (217)337-1980 or (619)651-1102

--