Subject: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:40:15 -0700

The statement that you issued repeatedly mentions that the IETF rules
and social contract were establish at a time when the IETF had 50 to 250
or 50 to 300 members. The obvious implication is that, since the
attendance has grown by an order of magnitude, the rules have to change
significantly.

The problem is that the 50-300 numbers are wrong. The original rules of
the IETF were indeed devised in 1986, when the IETF was just created and
had maybe 30-50 members. However, the current rules were designed in
1992-1993, in large part because the IETF had outgrown the previous
rules. If you look at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/past.meetings.html,
you will see that the attendance then was in the 500-700 range. Dave
Clark's statement was made during the 24th IETF, held July 13-17, 1992
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. There were 677 attendees.

Since then, the IETF has grown, and then shrunk. The current size is
about double the size of 1992. That is significant, but not quite an
order of magnitude.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 21:34:45 -0800

Christian,

thanks for the correction.
We can quibble about the exact dates for a while, but I've made the quip 
quite a few times that the IETF has a fine scalable management structure, 
which will scale all the way to 700 participants...... so I agree that 
"order of magnitude" is a misnomer.

We do, however, have trouble, even at our currently reduced size.

                 Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:15:43 -0800

Harald,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

> > in Cambridge, Massachusetts. There were 677 attendees.

What was the attendance of the last meeting then? and also what then is the
sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the Lists then too? I.e. what is the
total size of the Vetting Community Resource that the IETF brings to the
Party as an enterprise/org???

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:07:05 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

>>and also what then is the sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the
>>Lists then too? 

Counting the number of "entries" in the email lists will NOT produce a
count of IETF participants. Considering the IETF and IETF-Announce lists,
a number of "entries" are, in fact, local exploders/redistributors, and
knowing how many individuals receive a message is an exercise in futility.

Note also that many opted to be removed from the lists, preferring to
view the web page for the list.

Steve

---

From: Bruce Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:59:37 +0100 (CET)

> Party as an enterprise/org???

Are you sure that you can count the (large) number of subscribers that are
on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as participants?  There
seem to be a lot of people who are subscribed to various IETF-related
lists who do not seem to participate in the IETF discussions.

( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate in the
  IETF )

--==--
Bruce.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:09:12 -0800

Bruce -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Campbell" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "Christian Huitema"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

> on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as participants?

participants as far as meetings are concerned? no - obviously not, but this
pool of good email addresses constitute the core value of the IETF, that
being its Vettig Pool. So yes indeed, and also remember that the IETF is a
voluntary particpation standards process and platform, and that the reliable
email addresses for this "Vetting Pool" is what the core of the IETF's ideas
are vetted against. So put on your "organizational leader's" hat and then
ask me the same question -

> There

But the point is that they have the option. Its their choice as to whether
to participate of not.

> ( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate in the

I agree - so lets ask the question again, how many unique names are there in
the lists - what's the total 'verified email addresses' that make up the
total of the vetting pool? - 5000 - 10000 - 50000? what is it? Harald? -
this seems like a number that you as the Chair of the IETF would not only be
proud of, but would also have on the top of your head on a monthly basis...
Any ideas as to the number?

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:53:36 -0800

Ray - the idea is that you don't need to - the purpose of the IETF as a
standards development platform is to provide the "opportunity for
participation" and not the "enforced mandatory participation" - after all
the IETF is not a slave march (or is it :-)

(Damn this is scary Harald - I am defending the IETF - what's wrong with
this picture?)...

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ray Plzak" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Bruce Campbell'" <[email-masked]>; "'todd glassey'"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <[email-masked]>; "'Christian
Huitema'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 2:07 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> > Behalf Of Bruce Campbell
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:00 AM
> > To: todd glassey
> > Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Christian Huitema;
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> There are certainly more than 700 who attend.  I don't know if you can
> characterize them as all participating.
>
> Ray
>
>

---

From: "Ray Plzak" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:07:54 -0500

Ray