Re: [111attendees] test

Ted Lemon <> Fri, 23 July 2021 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52633A0A04 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 U3j1P5Pcd9pm for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 273923A09E5 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s21-20020a4ae5550000b02902667598672bso400698oot.12 for <>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zZfS3AsC64ZBW2dQF7wJa1ZbEKbjGdY1Qa03UPL16TA=; b=OgD9wK9FvZHJHvAXCI9Ipni7cUax7WkIVdgpZuGjBZHzPzSv+aLTKQJ71XAWkQ9y98 +82j7EXAjyinaqbdgUoxy6gLDJmBMhLpLOea0yCdHSgQ/Wc91bkkjSBqItNUCCJKyt9c DAWjOVTOdR4SWKHYxI73qMceq7KqcEb2FY7uboJY79XkWsno4vVfOBWohTEm7GXab6LN 2rt/a8hh+xOS5M0NPh3rsKx+RxzHHRUiK3qOqvFmbxmAZtMB3gdMXe5n8mkIJOtBbCtm LvRnpgIH58diem8zStePjNg8Yp6e681DE/an0opfm0m9fQ/lFjqAxvM/xmTQHky/mH49 wASg==
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=zZfS3AsC64ZBW2dQF7wJa1ZbEKbjGdY1Qa03UPL16TA=; b=oiXryvDdDIJRDvWW2jy49iTDgLxDGFjIxZFwh4cudnqtMoKwHBJ7VQuGHVkJMqN3Yt DiXZpCuLi/1NbbqDaXaULZcd5wxqenbMP/vCa4HuYlIrzyMRuHVyhVZ1U6lnipBm9OEF KvnIDPTQeVNHHMy/9pQEN501zy/1my7AbyddGSL/T3PVgKTFJKSbedJ+H88KH+as7NoL KkEdaJbjVP6KqDlkWGBeucjXlTJibXbhqC+VaDvee2Z9C5t1JUSDAiNk/2hcf8POfOgk E+0YlZEGo5SA64WIi6l3Z/tvdNMFRPn1/0SQx+pcCK6nlOaZ9wZGuCOYtQJ1p7q8s1SH fEKw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532YegpwJQ7flhMWM/NZMyBEyfvcKZ/IWV/KRfN/P/KKUokQsxkO GVzowOoqUr/AZt4RUKsFPmPN45pLO+1ExKzhhW0ViA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyN5QU0UHL8H9S8uHH4vlNz0FI3fiTTi/VN/vm3hsfwsTpvks8ojOYjeXIef2p1h1qSz9qHvSMon2PYMLkU61M=
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:8687:: with SMTP id x7mr2872922ooh.46.1627049439815; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 649336022844 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:39 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Superhuman Desktop (2021-07-22T22:11:15Z)
X-Superhuman-ID: krgf7pw3.ca8d06d1-5cd2-4d86-91bc-2ec2ac5b1e25
X-Superhuman-Draft-ID: draft00ee79b52ead1dd7
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 07:10:39 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Robert Moskowitz <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e483c005c7caf758"
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 14:10:55 -0000

Fundamentally the problem with mixed attendance is that it's possible to
feel like you are having a successful meeting when it's not at all
successful for the remote attendees. In order for there to be parity, it
has to be the case that a failure of the remote service stops people from
meeting in person. Which is hard to do, since the people who are there in
person can just talk amongst each other regardless of what the official
policy may be.

Hybrid meetings failed in the past because there was no collective
discipline to operate in this way. There was a great deal of generous
volunteer support for online participants in in-person meetings, and so it
was sometimes possible to have a successful meeting, but we were depending
heavily on the kindness and mindfulness of in-person participants, and it
didn't consistently work out.

On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 9:35 AM, Robert Moskowitz <>

> The single line mike could be upgraded with a cam, just like at the
> presentation point.  this adds cost over, you can't speak in the room
> unless you do it from your notebook/tablet/phone (chaos!)...
> Then the queue management is the mike(s) and online hands-raised.
> Or some such.
> On 7/23/21 9:26 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> I don't think this particular challenge (mixed online/in-person)
> has really been getting enough attention.
> 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, 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 <> <> 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 list111attendees@ietf.org
> --
> Standard Robert Moskowitz
> Owner
> HTT Consulting
> C:      248-219-2059
> F:      248-968-2824
> E:
> There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets
> the credit
> --
> 111attendees mailing list