Re: [111attendees] test

David Brown <> Fri, 23 July 2021 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844143A10A4 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 NaVZI75pyeZc for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2ED63A10BA for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e4so1232540vsr.13 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SGfKhdpSaMXFdfKYlizYQIo5WdAs5tnt4Y1C1oAWZu4=; b=QFVGaOD0G9xsjx91VUOTTBqodR2eIrTQzQzzDYsIa91HQIYYc6XvtoUAFqlyocZoS1 1Cgg9MoJ8xjdKtsR53pJu+DjW/HrVC4b5CULOTFKV/iYZyP5L8HGF7i429fV7/rTEX7P N4EHKaE8vKtUyttf4UsI1wD2uj8LDJIoE9pvmctw4tfCRQ1SxFnN+vwR4+84Nzn6QYdH f8Pw7eU00JlHeCc6gGW9SaAxcXcQWEMFFYwOYQ2BYR/Hm6W7P2WL8+ld8ed2y1SegQ1E w6gPIaqG74nWkFfrupxrPTfL2VlwI/5WJUygoJWprHQcMAY5YL9BQ9GeegejkEmc6Bc+ GcVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SGfKhdpSaMXFdfKYlizYQIo5WdAs5tnt4Y1C1oAWZu4=; b=d7Af5lGfYRzOaqiszQWr3Yh9G7XVs2n/Ve5xC27FOnJFim7zKye8hhK5e+ZO5ugQgH 7q1qLww0AJii9TvfZAezcUUZH1M1C9Zvpt+sJn10FkoSrz+WgYpabgy+FkHVTekgXRBn u+SZ7kRiDgnXxz5I0eP4oQUCbB2FOtHhuC8cmZVN6ok3WdAdJNb2OYzVT8RPSLOTaGoh WoHVf2zx4DqP+v5slslYatC1CyPT1D8BGp+BPQWrfnIyTNouT1Z53LiwfBazR9XQ3dAu t4hWMr7O5ryp1QJ0P/2TnUqt6LVOke7vS7LDa+Ax/4AW9AbAESTxPF1+DGXOs6OrZToz 5GiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ibyV28qviwVYMeM3Gc9ZoQafdnLLYkPDE+zNVSA7FS1lxszSu Aki2+1I9gIO0pWm1aMYPMAKC0M0wKS5bVqfRR51kGA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzk6plSsJWDmUHgCiMGEBfOy8amrCCuW2Z9G758Lp9Uam3ASPo/bQqcv0OQFwopUXEIp0ao7yJx+dklOCMSOrU=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ab4b:: with SMTP id k11mr5037546vsh.1.1627054258803; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Brown <>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:30:22 -0600
Message-ID: <>
To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <>,, Robert Moskowitz <>, Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000206a6405c7cc17de"
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 15:31:07 -0000

Even corporately, for someone like myself, where my IETF participation is
just a small part of my job. It isn't too difficult to justify the small
charge for online participation. Once travel is factored in, the in-person
participation becomes much more difficult to justify. This is the main
reason that I've only been able to participate, so far, online. I've
appreciated how much better that works for me, with these ones where
everyone is on line.

Online is challenging when there is a drastic timezone difference. With
on-site travel, it is easier to adapt, since everything around you is in
the new timezone. It doesn't work so well with remote participation.


On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 9:08 AM Marie-Jose Montpetit <>

> Another aspect that needs some thoughts is cost.
> In person participation even if you live in an Airbnb, a 2* hotel or with
> friends and not at the 5* IETF hotels (even at reduced rates) is a major
> monetary investment. If we want go get more people involved this has to be
> in the equation. I am IRTF of course but to get more academic participation
> the economics are part of it.
> But there is more: participants without corporate accounts (see costs
> above), with family or teaching obligations or with other issues have
> always participated remotely. So we can just extend it?
> And while I really want to start seeing you guys again we need to be
> realistic.
> mjm
> Marie-Jose Montpetit, Ing. Ph.D.
> On Jul 23, 2021, at 10:53 AM, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
> 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
> --
> 111attendees mailing list
> --
> 111attendees mailing list