Re: [111attendees] test

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 23 July 2021 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2CE3A09C9 for <111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 YVfhXIEp8F8p for <111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (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 0C4FB3A09DD for <111attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 16NEAHH6024346 for <111attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:10:17 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DB70206C32 for <111attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:10:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A75206BA9 for <111attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:10:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.14.3.47] ([10.14.3.47]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 16NEAHfI010161 for <111attendees@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:10:17 +0200
To: 111attendees@ietf.org
References: <c211bfe6-0ffb-b4d8-a3b8-840ab9ee0368@gmail.com> <af8652ed-179a-78d5-eb47-02302ba5e5c2@labs.htt-consult.com> <F7AA1B7F-23E8-48FB-B89B-AB2DAF1F1F8A@gmail.com> <CAAm_rSJcKNJchYt2_CEwBFQapQ3bDfbPXrJQkHQnsKW2i193Dw@mail.gmail.com> <ecad2565-6447-2065-53c6-f46d55666888@nthpermutation.com> <m2wnphq4ko.wl-randy@psg.com> <758515384.164289.1627031655741@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <0043DCA8-C794-4146-AC2A-F1600ACA2D98@tzi.org> <20210723132655.GI57276@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0c7d05e6-8693-ea4e-87f0-47ebf9d81d9a@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:10:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210723132655.GI57276@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/111attendees/YG7fuGfhtrVpNqTrD67vMO1NgXI>
Subject: Re: [111attendees] test
X-BeenThere: 111attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 111 attendees <111attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/111attendees>, <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/111attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:111attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees>, <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:10:23 -0000


Le 23/07/2021 à 15:26, Toerless Eckert a écrit :
> 
> I don't think this particular challenge (mixed online/in-person) has
>  really been getting enough attention.

I agree.

An initial point is wehther we agree that we are into this situation at
least for years 2021, 2022 and maybe 2023.

Once we assimilate that, then we might have two options:

- try to cope with it as usual with fully online meetings, and expect
that the new openings in 2023 will be f2f meetings precisely like
before.  Just carry on as possible during a few more months and then
everything will be like before.  Hold one's breath a little more.

- or otherwise breathe now: try to build hybrid meetings.  This would be
a perspective in which to admit that only hybrid meetings are possible
and the only way forward even beyond year 2023.

I am not sure at which of those two options is the IETF administration
and leadership currently situated.  Maybe I do not fully understand it,
and maybe they are already fully inclined into one or the other option.

For my part, I can say that:

- it is truly difficult to organize hybrid meetings that are safe and
convincing to IETFers.  I myself am very pessimistic about the ability
to make a convincing case.  Show me a hybrid meeting design and I will
immediately find flaws into it about covid propagation.

- if successful in organizing a convincing hybrid meeting, it might be
that others will replicate it (other than at IETF).  These are great
opportunities.

> I for once think that it will only work well if the in-person meeting
> part would require attendees even when being together in a room to
> use their notebooks for discussions instead of having a physical line
> at a single microphone,

I can agree.  But technically it should be tried to see whether
people-with-notebooks speak in a room can work, with respect to sound
pickup, echo, and other disturbances.  But it is an excellent thing to
try and prove.

That is about the hybrid room design.

In it there is also the room aeration topic.  Air flows should be
entirely vertical, no diagonal.  The A/C and HVAC topic of temperature
(dear to IETF) is irrelevant to covid, but the way the air flows is.

A large room with spaced chairs is ok; but the access to that room
should be as large, and feature no bottlenecks to it.

Other than room design, there are also the topics of covid testing,
travel permissions and interoperable freedoms respecting digital
verifications of proofs.  Each could be designed properly.  We need just
enough time.  And we have time, if we agree we are into this for long.

Alex

> so that there is more fairness between local and remote, but that was
> never really discussed on manycouches or picked up their documents.
> Yet i did hear it repeatedly as a suggestion from other IEF'er that
> had to atend remotely even before covid.
> 
> Cheers Toerless
> 
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 11:23:42AM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On 2021-07-23, at 11:14, Vittorio Bertola 
>> <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'd rather settle for "let the people who can and want meet in 
>>> person, as long as there are enough of them to make a meeting 
>>> viable”.
>> 
>> … and that, of course, means that this localized gathering is then
>>  jointly joining the global online meeting, and not the other way 
>> around. The tail/dog thing. Once that really works, we can more 
>> aggressively fall back to multiple regional hubs, until global 
>> traveling gets easier again.
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
>> -- 111attendees mailing list 111attendees@ietf.org 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>