Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Tue, 04 August 2020 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: 108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC983A0C10 for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AAjXo9VCxyIG for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32343A0C02 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D541760EBB; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:33:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <2D22A47A-C517-4A79-A8EF-CD5837EC9A43@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_07600D32-310E-479A-8190-189DFBD4A53A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 10:33:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <8B5599E0-6C6A-45CA-823B-353B68E0582A@tzi.org>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, Antoni Przygienda <prz=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>, "108attendees@ietf.org" <108attendees@ietf.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <DF9553CF-3B73-43C3-9BCF-5160A1949EC7@gmail.com> <3b9cc8e5-a9f2-cc44-8fc5-6b7649e43343@cs.tcd.ie> <392F9FEA-BA4A-4E57-B80D-D5B288B9887A@jisc.ac.uk> <f86a44a9-1f0e-9619-1a01-d2f9c98a756a@huitema.net> <20200802025924.GH1772@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3C71AFFA-E6D5-446C-B20A-C35B1EB8FFDF@nostrum.com> <m2eeoog2fr.wl-randy@psg.com> <BY5PR11MB4337767597051839FE069836C14D0@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <78c2bda7-ccf5-44f0-9520-f012d6949180@dogfood.fastmail.com> <8DEC8E1B-CA6F-4F18-BA4B-777EA401EDDC@chopps.org> <661693A8-DC49-4EF8-8FB4-66C760B6E971@juniper.net> <DC3243F3-6911-462E-B064-ED4AA6FCF919@ericsson.com> <814108A0-084C-4241-BEB8-68245E1A8B28@chopps.org> <8B5599E0-6C6A-45CA-823B-353B68E0582A@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/grf1CMO_uAW1DS76wemq6xYHn0o>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
X-BeenThere: 108attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 108 attendees <108attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/108attendees>, <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/108attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:108attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees>, <mailto:108attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 14:33:22 -0000


> On Aug 4, 2020, at 10:20 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> On 2020-08-04, at 16:08, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I do not agree with people who want to move from in person to "meeting only online", the reasons to meet in person have been enumerated countless times on the IETF discussion list, yet the push to eliminate the in person meetings continue despite this. Who would want to have this same debate ad nauseam in a WG?
> 
> Well, the “only” apparently was backfilled to avoid the WG name being a slur in certain contexts.

So why not pick another name that isn't a slur and doesn't put "Only" in the name? "Meet Online Optimally" MOO is even "cute" if that's a requirement for the WG name.

> I’m not sure the semantic implication of this change was intended — “meet mostly online” would have the same problem.
> 
> The charter https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/shmoo/about/
> 
> includes:
> 
> »The cadence of meeting scheduling and the mix of in-person versus fully
> online meetings going forward once the disruptions caused by the pandemic
> have subsided.«
> 
> So those of us who like to have that mix of face-to-face meetings and Web meetings will need to pay attention.

I don't think this group should be chartered to decide how often we will meet in person vs online since I believe the main participants are biased towards not meeting in person. The charter should be to figure out how to meet optimally online and then based on the results of that WG, we could start making decisions about how often and when to use online meeting vs in person. I think the second decision would involve more and different people than those focused the mechanics of online meeting.

Thanks,
Chris.

> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> --
> 108attendees mailing list
> 108attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/108attendees