Re: [111attendees] test

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I think that different simultaneous locations would automatically help with
equalizing the imbalance between in-person and remote, because now you have
two (or n) large groups of people who are remote to each other, so you have
to make the remote stuff work—it's no longer possible for anyone to imagine
that the meeting is a success if the remote stuff fails.

But I think the logistical challenges of doing this would be really
substantial, and I'm not sure it's practical. We certainly couldn't treat
each venue in the way we currently treat venues—that just doesn't scale.


On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 12:02 PM, Diego Dujovne <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Just wondering what would be to have different simultaneous
> locations for the same IETF.
> If travelling abroad is either difficult
> because of quarantine requirements, or too risky,
> maybe travelling to another city or cities inside borders could
> be a solution. I think an arrangement with exclusive use of a co-work
> or meeting sites with remote connections during IETF is something
> between a single-site IETF and everybody at home.
> This may help to solve remote working issues and
> reduce travel expenses.
> My two cents.
> Regards,
>
>                   Diego
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 12:49 PM Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]-consult.
> com> wrote:
>
> And is the IETF schedule time shift a pain.
>
> I tell my family, I am 'working' from 3pm - 9pm next week.  Do not
> disturb; I will squeeze dinner in there somehow.
>
> Oh, but all the other groups are still having their meetings 9am - 5pm,
> and I have to attend them.  So a 12 hour day.  We do such things away in
> hotels at the conferences, but at home, the families don't get it.
>
> 2 advantages of F2F:  Face-to-face.  Dedicated attention to work.
>
> With some time to 'play' in the lobby and elsewhere!
>
> On 7/23/21 11:30 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 9:08 AM Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.
> com> wrote:
>
> 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.
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 23, 2021, at 10:53 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>
>
> --
> 111attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>
>
>
> --
> 111attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>
> --
> 111attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>