Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 02 August 2020 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
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 DF48C3A0E96 for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 zW-wBN1Q_-iZ for <108attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A5893A0E87 for <108attendees@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BKNlp1f4kz6G90M; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1596378774; bh=qhFFh7xrCNvjChE4vrCGG2pNfpmpV9KjWFrbju9EVyw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nzDlkqpXFtN4oQERVvPtZUmVaCNF09vzfDeojeuWYzZDjj23sjK42va6CLf9/fvtW uaP7gHjg5YreIRHPNi9QIQBMktPM2n+nRF7QU59nBl5sZHu5MHdxTcp19wmDnOBecC Meqb+xmv7BtsJZBhQ/1NmG4gmzUuQE28QJtP5ZnQ=
X-Quarantine-ID: <zhgTzL5hPeOx>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BKNln511Gz6GBCt; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "108attendees@ietf.org" <108attendees@ietf.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> <20200802060510.GI1772@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <B84FE719-CD3F-4459-BE92-49DCECD1CB93@jisc.ac.uk>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <134a77fb-d8ec-7a88-08ff-140f5a538ca1@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 10:32:52 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B84FE719-CD3F-4459-BE92-49DCECD1CB93@jisc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/108attendees/jVNY7ILztQMDNq3XJOGJLNDfOJQ>
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: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 14:32:59 -0000

For me, the point of the IETF face-to-face sessions, or of interim WG 
sessions, is to engender discussion of issues which are difficult to 
understand / resolve on the email list.  Having two different sessions, 
worse with two different chairs, would be as if one were engaging two 
different WGs.  WHile that is better than nothing, it is not the goal.

Also note that unless we change the rules for chairs, it is quite likely 
to have two chairs in the same time zone, or at least have chairs such 
that having a session at a sane time for China is hard on the chairs. 
As long as we are following the pattern of the IETF meeetings (different 
meetings move the pain to different people) that is something we accept 
as chairs.  I do not see hwo "doing it twice" would work.

And rotating time zones within a short period of time is really hard on 
people's bodies.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/2/2020 2:53 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2020, at 07:05, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>>
>> I have consumed over the past few months a couple of research conferences
>> where pre-recorded video clips where used, created by the individual
>> contributors. I did not see a difference in quality of those that
>> where given live. Rather the opposite, because like when i did the same
>> myself, the pre-recording allowed to repeat the recording and train it.
>> Especially for presentations of 4..10 minutes that actually improves
>> quality quite a bit.
>>
>> I did not say this MUST be done, i was solely saying that we should
>> allow this to become an option chosen by the presenter.
> 
> I’ve come across this recently for a meeting which was trying to solicit input ion certain networking topics worldwide.  The talks are recorded, and the meeting run twice in 24 hours at different times of the day (2pm UTC and 7am UTC) with talks shown and discussion following each, and the outputs from both meetings merged.
> 
> Would it be crazy to repeat IETF sessions twice a day?   Imagine last week’s schedule, but delivered at (say) 11am UTC and  11pm UTC, potentially with different chairs to avoid the 4am Bob scenario.  Since all decisions are “taken to the list”, then does it matter if two instances of (say) 6man at 11am and 11pm UTC might make different points and have different threads of discussion?
> 
> Just putting it out there.
> 
> Tim
>