Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 04 August 2020 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E257E3A077E for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 08:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kGB4OwSUPx5c for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 08:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::729]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE7EA3A077C for <>; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 08:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l64so31829877qkb.8 for <>; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 08:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=aBefsOieFtDuhSNvNmp0oC/6kG68Jk6w7j/frUP4nJ8=; b=Sy+MkTxes+0z97/ipxekKigoQtAQlMETUhp+/0wypjo4rvXsmR6cQjDXEYoSkI/HH+ QBw/feLa2270GrGgEcI0qT2UDZPpSoD/VGNxVR/f9uAlk32LNCmoD9cBw9qgLPpXveOS Dyw8Udhj4AYdLEax+9KVKLBZhs0omk5WObo5ynuQcaf22m8F3yiaBCgsyO8i0zRM5n7Z 8daohAvwmLsYGAP+BHVrU3BAvvdx99FQZElu5QblZUYUZlwuUDkVJtqyuroy3h8/Z1Cb uPWMG5Jqiz/C/j+V/tfNONKWK8neWjmxhNauwlx8BKG7hBIa8vhOikEor2+FIKbD3VEu GroA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=aBefsOieFtDuhSNvNmp0oC/6kG68Jk6w7j/frUP4nJ8=; b=ea5iWPYvTq/3V7YvTk+JdgNwaoEIvw68CVUPDHtmuw6spnOLPUVRGCdu1GKj3QbOuw O/SmWc9GIkM+/PlMMwEeGb5dddVaQODE8zmo2JC26VOtbTHpKNRMVGqGiCbvyKxKf4kB yXqBe1+47QWQgQ4UnyQqnt8vXJY9zLjh0Ks6VkrX8IhlIMKqpEk2sZXc5yhw0XfuOjgX FOkfAZL5WTbKsJwKBjK3V7TF+TWzDseUQOztZL0vwgirOiEDJvpibE7exj5rdXHnSfWS hMKkXoS14NCdObygI0ToL//RIh0sJTP3jqlwu9Zq6dqafb720eBQUD3fyDtMwfvWSc7G jKXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531dVigdphW6MMNkyyuDbSiwaUX/W1/ti22iuF0mYxf4hKPbwdCy o5x2qvaaYXebGBkfCxrRG/Gdm2wMZzkQuA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0VWpSa5jVdUx/B+BBdLxTsRqqQcL6vtirfbB8rz/lazTGpswoWMgkZkZdZKZegogRekneMQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a906:: with SMTP id s6mr21057497qke.320.1596553304734; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 08:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([2601:18b:300:36ee:3415:d54c:3172:306c]) by with ESMTPSA id b2sm24097318qto.82.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2020 08:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:01:43 -0400
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: Mike Bishop <>, Bron Gondwana <>, Christian Hopps <>, Antoni Przygienda <>, Mirja Kuehlewind <>,
In-Reply-To: <>
To: John Scudder <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18A342b)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [108attendees] Successful IETF 108
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 108 attendees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2020 15:01:48 -0000

As far as I understand it, “only” is as opposed to “partly”. That is, as opposed to an in-person meeting with online participants. 

I’m a pretty strong advocate of learning how to get the benefit of in-person meetings online, both because it saves carbon and because it allows more participants. And yet I would not advocate never meeting in person. 

It might serve the community better if we could be less polarized about this. 

> On Aug 4, 2020, at 10:44, John Scudder <> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2020, at 10:34 AM, Mike Bishop <> wrote:
>> The working group is not tasked with the elimination of in-person meetings.  And frankly, if you believe it is and you oppose the idea, the working group needs you speaking up against it.
> For the reasons Chris mentioned earlier, this is an unrealistic expectation. There are various WGs I consider to be working on problems that don’t need solutions, or technologies that are dead ends. I generally think it’s antisocial and counterproductive to show up at their meetings and tell them so. It’s no skin off me if they choose to spend their time in a way I consider unwise, and besides, they might be right and I might be wrong (it happens with some frequency). As far as I’m concerned, the BoF phase is when naysaying has real value; after that, it’s a waste of your time and the WG’s, and it’s just rude.
>> The “only” was added to side-step an acronym the IESG decided to avoid; it refers to a meeting with no in-person attendees, not to the elimination of in-person meetings for all time.
> That was a poor naming decision then, and is having real-world consequences. As we know, “naming things” is one of the two hard problems of computer science (along with cache invalidation and off-by-one errors), so I don’t mean to criticize past decisions. But now that the bug has been demonstrated in the field, it’s time for a rename. Even if the name isn’t cute.
> —John
> -- 
> 108attendees mailing list