Re: [111attendees] test

Carsten Bormann <> Fri, 23 July 2021 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79E33A0D92 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ARctEFlccPFc for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF4813A0D82 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GWXP95Zqdz2xNH; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:53:01 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:53:01 +0200
Cc: Robert Moskowitz <>,
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 648744781.371226-9cda1c933242a6df7e69c00218aa1cf5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [111attendees] test
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 111 attendees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:53:07 -0000

Hi Ted,

You approach this from the angle we have been using for a decade now: remote participation as a backpack on a local meeting.  As you say, that doesn’t work too well.

Covid-19 gives us a unique chance to actually have the majority of the IETF participants (and not just the weird ones :-) be online.

Re failures: I would prefer not to have them, instead of worrying how the characteristics of the meeting will change when we do have them.  (I remember the plenary when the power in the hotel failed…  IIRC, we just stopped the meeting for half an hour; but I’m sure there were productive discussions between the people in the room during this time, and that is fine.)

> Hybrid meetings failed in the past because there was no collective discipline to operate in this way.

(The backpack thing.  Remote people are weird, and we’ll make “best effort” (i.e., not much at all) to accommodate them.  That, again, is changing.)

All that said, I don’t mind *some* advantages for people who actually travel; but I’m sure those advantages will be on the hallways and not in the meetings.

Grüße, Carsten